>> DMB:
>> In spite of your distaste for the theological aspect, your description
>> seems to be based on an assumption that competition is part of some
>> natural order and that it is the source of Dynamism and evolution. I'm
>> not sure about that connection. But this could easily be dismissed as
>> just a matter of style. Its true that a Dynamic economy is much better
>> than a static one, but it's also true that an economy based on
>> intellectual principles and ideas is better and more moral than social
>> level Victorian economics. I think we agree that the Robert's Rules
>> analogy works well here. We want a stable, static situation, hopefully
>> based on intellecual level values, where DQ can work its magic. We
>> certainly have to keep the "free" part of free enterprize and
>> competition is good, but I don't know if there is anything sacred
>> about it. Help me out here. How is it not a Darwinistic notion? How is
>> it moral? How is it MOQ? As you like to say, I could be wrong, but
>> "competition" doesn't strike me as a principle or an idea at all.
>> Conflict. Hmmmm. Pirsig has lots to say about conflict....
I think I mentioned this once, but I'll be glad to bring it up again. The
classic refutatation of social darwinism is the tragedy of the commons.
The commons is an area grazed by x number of cattle with a carrying
capacity of y.
The benefit from each cow is accrued to owner of the beast.
The detriment to the commons is carried by all.
Thus, men's competition to maximize profit inevitably spells the doom of
the commons.
Society's that can't percieve that die out.
In our Nation we have laws that govern the uses of the commons -
environmental laws and such because we can apprehend intellectually the
danger of unrestricted social competition run amok.
However, we still have problems because this reduces all the "environment"
to human resources, and intellectually that's unviable. But that's an
ongoing "conflict".
>> DMB:
>> Yes, we're clearly talking about the same thing, even if we don't
>> agree completely. See, I think a lot of the ideas are sound. The
>> upstarts and inventors really do keep things moving, I'm absolutely in
>> favor of a free-market economy, but I think the reality on the ground
>> is far different than many people imagine. I mean the theory is a long
>> way from the actual state of affairs. The truth is, corporations run
>> the world. Of the 200 largest economic entities on earth, a majority
>> of them are not nations, but corporations. These institutions are good
>> and necessary, but they've grown too powerful. They've corrupted
>> politics and squeezed out the other voices of this democracy. The
>> media virtually controls what we desire and think about. The structure
>> of these "Giants" is hardly free or democratic. And in general I think
>> there is a great discrepancy between price and value.
>>
>> How can Jerry Springer get rich while most brilliant physicist can
>> only make a tiny fraction of that pay. Whay are football players rich
>> and artists poor? Why does America spend a billion dollars a year on
>> pro-wrestling? Why is Gates a Gazillionaire while the man who invented
>> the web remains relatively middle class? I could list the dissed all
>> day. There must be an intelligent way to soften these discrepancies
>> while keeping the whole thing free and open to DQ.
>>
>> A free economy, yes. But with some smart rules to keep it that way.
>>
>> Thanks for your time.
Whew. I agree completely yes yes. You said it very well.
My thinking has been radically moved by a French Theologian and critic of
Technology who explained the conflict in terms of the Image vs. the Word.
These terms mean more than the mere surface meaning suggests and indicate
the conflict of static systems of social control (images) over fundamental
intellect (words).
It was an interesting thesis he presented. There are two ways a human can
recieve information into his brain - his eyes or his ears. Eyes correspond
to images and reality and the ear relates to words and Truth. Truth and
Reality are in conflict in the same way that society and intellect are.
It's been fascinating seeing the insight the MoQ brings to his analysis and
vice versa.
But the overwhelming conclusion is that we are approaching a crisis - the
total triumph of social means of control - the emergence of the beast that
archtypically haunts our nightmares. Perhaps this beast has been percieved
ever since the dawn of western civilization. It's very interesting to
intellectualize... but sort of scarey to behold.
jc
MOQ Online Homepage - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Unsubscribe - http://www.moq.org/md/index.html
MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:03:16 BST