From: Platt Holden (pholden@sc.rr.com)
Date: Sun Sep 12 2004 - 20:54:13 BST
Dear Ant,
> Ant McWatt comments:
>
> Pirsig doesn’t specifically define “free market” in LILA but was simply
> using the usual (SOM?) understanding of “free market” as referring to the
> economic sector alone. In his later correspondence with me concerning
> education he was using an expanded (MOQ orientated) definition of “free
> market” that primarily refers to the Dynamic to emphasise the fact that the
> social level is not the only level open to Dynamic Quality.
Are you saying the social level is open to DQ? Wouldn't it be more correct
to say the free market social level is open to DQ? Pirsig makes it clear
that the socialist social level isn't open to DQ, which explains why its
cities are "dull."
> “I think the MOQ regards any government supervision of the university
> curriculum as a form of evil because this is a social pattern attempting
> to control intellectual patterns. 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)
Thanks for illuminating a "free market place of thought." Do you consider
this site as such? I do. Regarding government supervision of this free
market of thought, do you think Pirsig would be in favor of such
supervision to protect universities from monopolies of thought? Some of
our state legislatures are concerned with the monopoly of liberal thought
at their state-supported universities and have sponsored "Academic Bill of
Rights" legislation to break up such monopolies and insure diversity of
thought on campuses.
> Intellectuals per se are a social grouping i.e. a social group that
> professionally engages in intellectually orientated work (usually in an
> educational setting).
By this definition it seems the only people we can call "intellectuals"
are college professors. How about media pundits, innovate business people
and researchers in the private sector? Are not Bill Buckley, Bill Gates
and Wallace Carothers (inventor of nylon) intellectuals? Besides, Pirsig
said that anyone who is up to reading Lila occupied the intellectual level
defining it as the "same as mind." I think that would include a lot more
people than you account for.
> 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. I don’t see the term “SOM” in this
> sentence.
A "Buddhist philosopher" is an oxymoron for as Pirsig says about mystics,
for them "thought is not a path to reality," and philosophy (metaphysics)
is a "degenerate activity." Anyway, I sure would like to see a list of
"non-SOM intellectuals." Seems to me you'll have to find them somewhere
other than in the sciences and the liberal arts except perhaps a few
postmodernists who are now pretty much over the hill. Even the worshipped
Ken Wilber is an SOM intellectual, not to mention our old friend, Noam
Chomsky. :-)
> 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.
I read the MOQ as agreeing with the (Pirsigian) idea that intellectual
patterns are the source of the intellectual level, i.e., the idea of the
intellectual level. In the MOQ, all "ideas," including the ideas in the
MOQ, are intellectual patterns. Only direct experience is excluded from
intellectualization.
> Firstly, “the” free market economic system is a fiction (in as much as any
> socialist or communist system is a fiction).
To read Pirsig, one wouldn't conclude he's talking about fictional
economic systems.
> Secondly, though it is not ideal (though probably better than nothing) for
> SOM intellect to control free market economic systems (because they don't
> recognize DQ), it certainly isn’t moral for SOM business people (who also
> fail to recognise DQ) to undermine the “free market place of thought”.
How about control of monopolistic practices?
> In
> other words, there already exists Dynamic elements within the social and
> intellectual levels which are not fully recognised by SOM business people
> and SOM intellectuals. As such, great harm is being done by commercial
> interests (and governments such as the UK government who buy into
> commercial ideology) to the free market place of thought. An example of
> this is auditing on commercial lines that has been recently applied
> inappropriately to the UK university system which has undermined academic
> quality (my education paper goes into this in detail and I will put the
> updated version of this back on my website soon).
As I pointed out in my previous post, it's naďve to think government will
give away money without strings attached. He who pays the piper calls the
tune. In fact, I think it would be immoral for the government to bestow
taxpayer money on anybody without some sort of accounting.
> Thirdly, 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).
Well, if you can find us any "MOQ intellects," please identify them for us
so we can vote for them in the next election. In fact, I wonder how you
would go about identifying an "MOQ intellect?"
> The MOQ
> overhaul must apply to all sectors of society, not just the university
> sector.
What would be the "MOQ Manifesto" to overhaul all sectors of society? This
group has had a hard time even agreeing on MOQ principles much less an MOQ
guide to social reform. About all I've heard suggested so far is health
care for everybody and other leftist proposals that have little if any
relationship to MOQ morality.
> Having said that, it still would have been more precise of me to
> distinguish between the intellectual level as a whole (as recognised by the
> MOQ) with the MOQ intellectual pattern itself which is one type (as is SOM
> intellect) of the various intellectual patterns that exist.
Again I would ask, "What intellectual patterns are there other than SOM
and MOQ? Would you agree that mysticism is not intellectual?
> . . . if you were to suddenly stop funding
> universities because they presently subscribe to SOM ideology, you would be
> in danger of undermining the subsequent development of an MOQ orientated
> university sector.
I doubt it. I think private funding is more likely to create an MOQ
oriented university sector (if such is possible) than public funding.
Anyway, the point still stands, "Why take taxpayer money to fund an
ideology that is creating a "social catastrophe?"
> The same thing could be said about the SOM orientated
> military or business sectors in the West. The essential point is that 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.
It would certainly be a mistake to undermine the SOM oriented military
since they need to objectively identify and stop enemies from destroying
the higher levels. Business sectors are more "quality" and "value"
oriented than perhaps you give them credit for. Recall Pirsig's example of
the stock market as a measure of value. The "quality" of goods and
services plays a primary role in a free market. In a socialist market, you
take what the government decrees you should have, quality or no.
> Would unrestrained creativity be a bad thing? Probably not though, having
> said that, I think this question requires considerably more thought.
I think unrestrained anything is likely to be bad. Pirsig is right in
saying, "Freedom and order are contradictory but both are necessary at the
same time."
> It seems that we have reached some sort of agreement here though it leaves
> me wondering why you stated, in the first place, that “To put artists in
> the same category of police, soldiers, doctors and employers is an insult
> to all”. As far as I read the MOQ, good instances of each category are all
> essential to maintain a high quality society.
Yes. From that point of view, you're right. I was looking at it from each
occupation's point of view. I don't think your average NYC fireman has
much respect for the modern art being promoted to the elite in Soho
galleries.
> No. The free market of thought that Pirsig was referring to in his
> original quote from July 2002 refers to intellectual patterns though, of
> course, these are transferred via social means such as books, papers and
> conferences.
I wonder how it's possible to have a "market" without "social means."
If I've chopped up and left out important parts of your response, I
apologize. Thanks for an interesting conversation which I'd love to
continue with you when you have time.
Best,
Platt
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 : Sun Sep 12 2004 - 20:50:14 BST