From: David Morey (us@divadeus.freeserve.co.uk)
Date: Sat Sep 11 2004 - 23:12:16 BST
dmb:his concept of the individual is one of the
nightmares created by SOM and the MOQ considers it a ridiculous fiction.
DM:examples?
dmb: however we slice
> it, the solution will be found in intellectual creativity, not in the
> economy or any other part of the social level.
DM:pretty good chance it will come outside of the university at
the start, SOM dominance at the social level reinforces
thinking in the university that is pretty conformist I fear.
As you say:
And when education
> is forced to adapt to the rules of the marketplace, it'll be dominated by
> social level values too. Then we won't have education or intellectual
> freedom at all, although I'm sure it would be marketed as such. Instead
> we'll get job training and indoctrination.
Also agree there are some useful moves in post-modernism away from SOM
-very good point. The world of work is full of the micro-power
described by Foucault. Nice posts all -keep it up.
regards
DM
----- Original Message -----
From: "David Buchanan" <DBuchanan@ClassicalRadio.org>
To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Sent: Saturday, September 11, 2004 9:27 PM
Subject: RE: MD The free market of thought
> Platt, Ant McWatt and all free shoppers:
>
> dmb says:
> Apologies in advance for the editing. I've tried to preserve the main
> points....
>
> Ant McWatt stated September 8th:
> ...Platt's (comment) is misleading ..because he has erroneously conflated
> SOM intellectual patterns with the MOQ's intellectual level as a whole.
>
> Platt Holden commented on September 9th:
> ...I merely repeated what Pirsig said about SOM "intellectuals."
>
> Ant McWatt replied:
> No, you didn't merely repeat what Pirsig said about SOM "intellectuals"
> because you took Pirsig's references out of context by failing to make it
> clear that he was criticising SOM intellectuals alone rather than
> intellectuals as a whole (many of which, such as Buddhist philosophers,
for
> instance, are certainly not SOM intellectuals). This is why your
September
> 7th statement that "Pirsig blasted intellectuals in Lila" is dangerously
> misleading and first class hogwash.
>
> dmb says:
> Exactly. Platt has repeatedly used Pirsig's criticisms of SOM to indict
the
> fourth level as a whole. In the case of his defense of the so-called "free
> market", he even uses it to assert the superiority of social level values
> over intellectual values, which is not just erroneous, but also immoral.
> I've tried to make this point many times, but I suspect Platt would prefer
> to misread or even to alter the MOQ rather than change his beleifs about
> capitalism. And it more than just an affection for a certain economic
> system. This conflation comes in quite handy whenever Platt's
> anti-intellectual instincts flare up.
>
> Ant McWatt comments on the "individual" level:
> I read the MOQ as agreeing with the (Buddhist) idea that intellectual
> patterns are the source of individuals i.e. the idea of the self. This is
> why I think terming the intellectual level the "individual" level would be
> an error.
>
> dmb says:
> Exactly. Living beings can respond to DQ and are the source of new ideas,
> but individuality and our modern ideas about the self are NOT what
responds.
> Rather, they are a product of that response. Platt wishes to replace the
> intellectual level with the individual level because of the intellect's
> flaws, but, ironically, his concept of the individual is one of the
> nightmares created by SOM and the MOQ considers it a ridiculous fiction.
>
> Platt Holden stated on September 9th:
> ...it isn't moral for SOM intellect to control economic social patterns
> because they don't recognize DQ. Recall that Pirsig says the free market
> economic system is more moral than the socialist system for that reason.
>
> Ant McWatt replied:
> [major snip] ...would it be moral for MOQ intellect to control economic
> social patterns because it does recognize DQ? I think the answer is
> definitely yes because MOQ intellect would let free markets of economic
> social patterns operate completely freely except when they undermine the
> (morally higher) free market place of thought i.e. a balanced system that
is
> neither fully blown capitalism (which can lead to degeneracy) nor
socialist
> (which can lead to boredom and a lack of social freedom).
>
> dmb says:
> Right, the devil is in the details, but I think its safe to say that the
MOQ
> would support an intellectually guided political economy that DOESN'T
> inadvertantly close the door on the dynamic. I'd point out that neither
the
> capitalists nor the socialists ever figured out what that was all about.
But
> I'd also point out that Platt is simply incorrect in asserting that free
> markets are more moral than intellectually guided economies. That's the
> exact opposite of what Pirsig says. He says they are less moral and points
> out a different kind of superiority. The dynamic quality that makes free
> markets superior AS MARKETS, does not negate the moral codes or constitute
> an exception to the MOQ's hierarchy. SOM's blindness to this factor cannot
> rightly be used against one side and not the other. And this are just some
> of the confusions that occur in Platt's conflation of SOM with intellect
> itself.
>
> Platt Holden stated on September 9th:
> ...Most universities are dominated by SOM. ...Not to mention SOM
intellect's
> failure to perceive DQ. I say it's immoral to support SOM thinking with
> taxpayer funds.
>
> Ant McWatt replied:
> As are most Western societies including their business sectors. The MOQ
> overhaul must apply to all sectors of society, not just the university
> sector.
> ...you would be in danger of undermining the subsequent development of an
> MOQ orientated university sector. ...a movement towards MOQ thinking is
> required in all sectors - to severely damage or undermine any sector
because
> it is presently SOM orientated would probably be a mistake.
>
> dmb adds:
> Most universities are dominated by SOM and its immoral to support SOM
> thinking? I'm horrified by the implications of Platt's assertions and I'm
> impressed that Ant can respond to them so calmly. As I see it, Platt is
> using SOM's flaws to suggest we ought to defund our institutions of higher
> learning. Its hard to imagine what could be more anti-intellectual or more
> destructive of the possibility of outgrowing SOM, as Ant points out. As I
> see it, this is an example of that handy conflation once again being used
to
> undermine the intellect.
>
> Platt Holden stated on September 9th:
> ........................ With postmodernism, universities have made a
> determined move away from maintaining the intellectual value of truth.
> Further, we have seen what "intellectual independence" has wrought in the
> name of SOM -- in Pirsig's words, "social catastrophe."
>
> Ant McWatt said:
> The "intellectual independence" that Pirsig refers to might have brought
> about various social problems in the 20th century but Pirsig also makes it
> clear that the independence of the intellectual level from the social
level
> (in the 1920s) was a moral act. The MOQ is an idea from an independently
> minded intellectual to help remedy the difficulties that SOM orientated
> intellects have caused and certainly does not support, in any form or
> manner, the idea that "intellectual independence" needs to be removed per
> se. ...As such, and judging from your recent posts (since 1997 anyway), I
> think I need to set you some homework, Platt :-) ,
>
> dmb says:
> Not only that, but despite postmodernism's flaws, it actually represents
the
> demise of SOM. It is the beginning of the end of SOM. In fact, in that
> respect at least, the MOQ is part of the postmodern movement, as are most
> serious thinkers of the last several generations. It may be true that a
> great many of them are only continuing or even exaggerating the problems
> identified by Pirsig, postmodernism is still a positive development AWAY
> from SOM, which is essentially the Modern worldview. And however we slice
> it, the solution will be found in intellectual creativity, not in the
> economy or any other part of the social level. It will continue to be a
> giant conflict, but there is space enough and time enough for better
> worldviews to come along, provided we don't destroy that project as Platt
> seems to want.
>
> Platt Holden stated on September 9th:
> Since commercial interests are private, have earned their own money, and
> cannot back their restrictions with guns, I don't see a problem.
>
> dmb says:
> When the government controls business we call it Communism and when
business
> controls the government we call it Fascism. That's the problem you never
> seem to grasp. Money is an index of social value and when money runs the
> government, you get one guided and dominated by social level values and
that
> is more or less hostile to intellectual level values. And more to Platt's
> ham-handed point, commercial interests ARE backed by guns to the extent
that
> our national defense is aimed at protecting those commercial interests.
> Historically, it is an indisputable fact that the U.S. military has often
> used force to support business interests and the present war is certainly
> aimed at protecting the flow of oil, among other things. And when
education
> is forced to adapt to the rules of the marketplace, it'll be dominated by
> social level values too. Then we won't have education or intellectual
> freedom at all, although I'm sure it would be marketed as such. Instead
> we'll get job training and indoctrination.
>
> And think about the LIE DETECTOR thread, where people are confessing that
> they'll piss in a cup or allow their persperation rates in order to get or
> keep a job. Think about the confessions of self-imposed inauthenticity, of
> hiding most facets of ourselves from co-workers. And this kind of
outrageous
> coersion is multiplied in a million tiny ways everyday. Commercial
interests
> are not just profit makers, they are employers and in a world where money
is
> a necessity for life, that means they are very powerful. It is the only
> domain from which we can get money to support basic biological needs and
> one's occupation is vital socially too. Most people hang their identity
and
> self-worth upon to some at least some extent. When you've got that kind of
> thing hanging over people's heads, you don't need a gun.
>
>
> 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
>
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 : Sat Sep 11 2004 - 23:14:56 BST