From: Arlo Bensinger (ajb102@psu.edu)
Date: Tue Oct 11 2005 - 17:59:10 BST
[Platt]
Why is it necessary to show someone comparable? My question, though
hypothetical, is whether you think the motive of the creator determines the
quality of a product. .
[Arlo]
My suspicion is that those who enrich the culture are generally not "in it
for the money", which I find a low quality motivator as opposed to its
popular conception as the Almighty Motivator. But, if you question is, if
someone is in it for the money, and happens to make a contribution that
enriches society, then no, I don't think their motives necessarily
detriment the Quality of the product.
[Platt]
I take it you don't think Gates has improved our culture, and that we would
have been better off without Microsoft. OK, what about Henry Ford?
[Arlo]
With Ford, I'm guessing your question is "Did Ford's contribution of
assembly-line production enrich culture?". My feeling on this is that
although it improved the "quantity" of production, it did damage to the
"quality" of production. (Generally speaking, of course). And, I think an
overall effect was to lower the quality of labor conditions, by reducing
labor to an endless monotony of repetitive tasks. Indeed, Platt, I think
Fordian production was at the heart of the cultural despair Pirsig talks
about in ZMM.
[Platt]
How about Thomas Edison? Sam Walton?
[Arlo]
Do you have evidence that Thomas Edison was "in it for the money"? From
everything I've read, he was a passionate inventor who was not trying to
get rich by inventing. If you have something to show otherwise, please let
me know.
Sam Walton. Again, I think there is ample evidence that Walmarts have hurt
local neighborhoods and economies. In what ways do you feel Sam Walton
enriched our culture? Do you feel that Walmart provides a higher quality
part of communities than locally owned shops? Explain.
[Platt]
My questions are to find out if you believe earning millions in a free
market automatically disqualifies someone from contributing to the
betterment of mankind, because all those whose purchases made these guys
millionaires suggest otherwise.
[Arlo]
Hmm. I don't think earning capital disqualifies someone. But my experience
seems to indicate that in nearly all cases where culture was enriched, the
financial capital was an afterthought (as in Pirsig's case). If I become
aware of exceptions, I'll certainly take them into consideration.
Finally, I don't think that amassed capital from market success is any
indicator of enriching culture. Eminem and Larry Flynt are both
millionaires, but I doubt their market success ipso facto would make you
think they enriched culture, despite all those purchases that made these
guys millionaires suggesting otherwise.
Arlo
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 Oct 11 2005 - 18:25:35 BST