MD The free market of thought

From: ant.mcwatt@ntlworld.com
Date: Tue Sep 07 2004 - 02:30:51 BST

  • Next message: ml: "Re: MD Political Correctness"

    > “It is hypocritical for conservatives to
    > denounce government interference in the free market place of commerce and
    > then turn around and enforce government interference in the free market
    > place of thought.”
    >
    > (Robert Pirsig to Anthony McWatt, July 3rd 2002)

    In relation to the above quote, Platt Holden stated Sept 5th:

    By the same token, Pirsig could have argued that government support of
    universities is a form of evil because it's a social pattern (money
    coerced from taxpayers) attempting to control intellectual patterns.

    Ant McWatt comments:

    Zdravstvuite Comrade Holden!,

    It’s good to hear from you as usual though I suspect you’ve been reading your Manifesto backwards again.

    To remind you Comrade, the party line is that, all things being equal, it’s moral for social patterns (such as a government) to financially support intellectual patterns (i.e. the university curriculum). It’s only immoral when a government attempts to control an intellectually orientated curriculum.
     
    Comrade Holden stated Sept 5th:

    Besides, it's hypocritical for universities to accept money from a
    government on the one hand and denounce that government on the other, as
    many universities do.

    Comrade McWatt comments:

    I have checked the manifesto for you, Comrade Holden. It states that governments don’t actually have any money. “Their” money is really the taxpayers!

    Comrade Holden stated Sept 5th:

    Their attitude is like that of the art crowd who
    believe, "People should be forced to pay us whether they value our
    products or not." Doesn't sound moral to me.

    Comrade McWatt comments:

    Artists? Yes, like the philosophers they should have all been shot in the Great Revolution!!! Free thinkers are always a danger to the status quo and should be repressed at all possible times.

    However, the manifesto states that no-one is coerced into buying individual pieces of art though obviously arts councils etc are often partly funded by the taxpayer via government to improve the general quality of life - as are the police, armed forces, health services and business development.

    Comrade Holden stated Sept 5th:

    I think Pirsig would be the last person in the world to expect, much less demand, a stipend from government for creating ZMM and Lila.

    Comrade McWatt comments:

    The manifesto states that Chairman Pirsig received a stipend (one pig?) from the Guggenheim Foundation for writing LILA!

    Comrade Holden stated Sept 5th:

    If they had any moral integrity, universities would do likewise. Either that or stop complaining about government "interference." He who pays the piper calls the tune.

    Comrade McWatt comments:

    Nearly the full picture but – as usual - not quite full marx here. The manifesto states that as an MOQ taxpayer I would expect the government to maintain a high quality intellectually orientated educational system rather than one orientated to social purposes such as developing commercial interests.

    As Comrade Morey noted on Sept 6th:

    [Ideally] you bring up your children and they
    go off and do their own thing,
    so it should be when there is
    freedom, the intellectual-child needs freedom
    from the social-parent to flourish, but universities
    are clearly corrupted and not serving intellect
    too well at the moment. We do need a better way to
    think, research & educate.

    Comrade Holden stated Sept 5th:

    A free market doesn't mean a free ride.

    Comrade McWatt comments:

    Too true Comrade but remember a free market means a dynamic system whether economic or educational and the latter (in the MOQ) is primary.

    Priyatnyh Socialist snov Comrade!

    Comrade McWatt.

    (Transcript taken recently from a tape recorded secretly at the Karl Marx Home for MOQ Philosophers who have lost it).

    -----------------------------------------
    Email provided by http://www.ntlhome.com/


    Mark,

    Would it be possible for the "stuff" contained in the social level to be
    90% morally superior and 10% morally inferior?
     
    Mark 6-9-04: Hi Marsha, The description we are using here is a patterned static description, as all description are. The stuff you refer to are static patterns of quality. The moral hierarchy of the MOQ is derived from the evolutionary relationship of patterns - Intellectual patterns are more Dynamic and more free than Social patterns. Even the most primative Intellectual patterns are more moral than sophisticated social patterms. That is to say, the best social patterns are morally inforior to the worst Intellectual patterns.
    If Social patterns hijack intellectual patterns for their own good, this act is immoral. If Intellectual patterns reject conventional social patterns in order to evolve, this is act is moral.
    DQ does not appear in this description, but evolution requires DQ otherwise it would not happen at all. When i say the self is all levels, it is all levels responding to DQ. Of all the possible responses to DQ their are 'better' responses than others, and the best ones offer the best chance of survival into higher patterns of evolution.
    So, when you ask, "Would it be possible for the "stuff" contained in the social level to be 90% morally superior and 10% morally inferior?" i would answer yes. The evolution of value has left in its wake a whole graveyard of static patterns.
     
    And would it be possible
    for the "stuff" contained in the intellectual level to be 90% morally
    inferior and only 10% morally superior?  If so, would the intellectual
    level still be a higher level?  If yes, why?

    MarshaV
     
    Mark 6-9-04: No Intellectual patterns are inferior to social patterns. The Intellectual level is so much more open to Dynamic response than Social patterns as to make social patterns appear to be evolving in slow motion. Consider the rate at which society evolves over biological evolution? How many civilizations have come and gone; how many languages and customs over the last 10,000 years, while biological Human patterns have remained rather static. If you stood a Homeric next to a 21st century Human, given the same clothes you would not be able to distinguish them.
    How much more Dynamic are the ideas of our hypothetical friends? And how much faster they respond to DQ.
     
    All the best,
    Mark


    At 09:55 AM 9/6/2004 -0400, you wrote:
    >MarshaV
    >Hi Marsha,
    >The Intellectual and social levels of evolution are discrete. They may
    >support or attack eachother however, and this may be the source of what
    >you feel to be 'facets'? Intellectual patterns are more Dynamic than
    >Social patterns and this is one reason why they are morally superior -
    >Intellectual patterns increase freedom - they are a better stage along the
    >evolutionary route to DQ.
    >
    >All the best,
    >Mark

    MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
    Mail Archives:
    Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
    Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
    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 : Tue Sep 07 2004 - 02:30:31 BST