From: Matt the Enraged Endorphin (mpkundert@students.wisc.edu)
Date: Mon Dec 23 2002 - 21:27:53 GMT
Steve,
I welcome your voice.
Steve said:
If you and Pirsig part ways at this point, then I can't see how you
have any common ground at all.
Matt:
There's Quality. At the end of this post, like I've done elsewhere, I make
a distinction between the private and public spheres that Pirsig, for his
part, wouldn't want to make. Its done for practical purposes, not
ontologically. Now, it may be that one of Pirsig's main objectives in ZMM
and Lila is to dissolve the distinction between the private and public
spheres. There's alot of evidence to support this and I might argue as
much. However, all of the distinctions that Pirsig's involved in
dissolving, under the heading SOM, are metaphysical. I think he's right to
dissolve the metaphysical barriers, but I don't think he went far enough.
I think he needed to simply dissolve metaphysics. In its place, practical
distinctions are fair enough game because they are experimental. If it
seems like a good idea, we go with it till something better comes along.
Steve:
People never have enough money.
Matt:
A nice pot shot, but like you say below, money is simply a symbol. To say
this, you are supposing that greed is a major problem in our society. I
agree and, as I said in my last post, "the fact that [the upper and middle
classes] spend most of their time watching TV or trying to figure out how
to make more money _is_ a problem and might be attributable to a 'spiritual
crisis'."
Steve:
Everyone is spiritual whether they know it or not if the universe is based
on value not material.
Matt:
Nice for you to say, but if you make this paradigm switch, then the problem
we are dealing with changes clothes, rather than goes away.
Steve:
I don't have statistics to back up my claim, but I think you are
wrong. If you are taking economics to be the "primary motor of history"
then the world is getting better and better, not to hell. People are more
wealthy now than ever. The fact that we all know that the world is not
really getting better contradicts using economics as a measure.
Matt:
Oh, Lord. This is just completely wrong-headed. You can disagree with the
assertion that economics is the primary motor of history, but to say that
if it is, the world is _obviously_ getting better is to ignore, at the
least, this century of American history. You say, "People are more wealthy
now than ever." Which people? Wealthy people? Why yes, wealthy people
are becoming more and more wealthy. The growth of the poor people's pie
isn't quite looking as good, however. There have been gains by some of the
underpriveleged, but there are sill many living in complete and hopeless
poverty. When I say that economics is the motor of history, I'm following
Marx, the great defender of the underclass. He lived during the Industrial
Revolution when people were becoming richer than they had ever been and
faster than anybody thought possible. What Marx meant by making economics
the motor of history was that, until people have their material necessities
taken care of, they won't have time to take care of their spiritual
necessities. They won't have time to love thy neighbor. They'll be too
busy scrapping for a meager existence.
Now, I'm sure my statements will touch off another
economics/political/statistical debate, one that I have no real interest in
participating. The only point I need is my reading of Marx and the fact
that a lot of poor people still exist in the "rich" North Atlantic nations
and the world and a lot of suffering still exists.
Steve:
When you say that what we need is more money, I wonder what you mean. Money
is just a symbol. What do we really need?
Matt:
Money is a symbol for material necessities. If everybody had enough money
(realize I'm saying "enough," not "a lot"), then they'd be able to take
care of clothes, food, and shelter and have enough time and energy left
over for private paths towards self-perfection (whatever those paths may be).
Steve:
Who are these poor people that you are talking about? If you mean North
Americans and Europeans, then I think you are way off. What percent of
people on these continents would answer the question, "what would you do
with an extra $100?" with "put food on the table for my kids"? I think it
would be quite small. The people are hungry, but not for food. They are
poor in spirit. And if everyone were issued a Big Mac, a new pair of
high-tops and a larger screen TV it will not improve society in any way.
Matt:
I honestly don't know how you can say this. I'm going to choke back my
utter disbelief (which is commingling with anger and sorrow) and suggest
that you take a few history and sociology classes at your local university.
Or read Sinclair's The Jungle. He's still pretty applicable even today.
In fact, my fiance is reading a book right now that might enlighten you as
to the plight of many Americans (which isn't even to address the rest of
the people all over the world): There Are No Children Here by Alex
Kotlowitz. The subtitle is "The Story of Two Boys Growing Up in the Other
America" and its about the real life experiences of two boys living at the
Henry Horner Homes, a.k.a. the Chicago projects, before they were torn
down. Its sad, its depressing, and it makes you wake up.
The saddest thing about this is that, you are right, North America and
Europe do have a lot of money. The problem is that its centralized in a
smaller demographic then need be and those who have aren't sharing with
those who have not. What's even sadder than that, is when we enlarge our
scope to the whole world. We might, conceivably, have enough growth
possibility that the North Atlantic nations could help out all of their own
poor. But the rest of the world is quite probably beyond the amount of
money being produced (money still being a symbol). Its just depressing
when you want to help the world, and the task looks horribly
insurmountable. But, as a good liberal, I still want to try. I still want
to hope for a better world for everybody.
Matt
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Dec 23 2002 - 21:22:31 GMT