From: ian glendinning (psybertron@gmail.com)
Date: Fri Oct 14 2005 - 18:33:00 BST
Platt, lying again - smearing what you see as "opposition" with your
filthy rhetoric
Not one single person on here said (unqualified)
"rock and roll is high quality"
Not one. I'll bet you $100.
You'll find quite a few people said things more like
"some rock and roll is high quality" (and gave examples)
"a lot of rock and roll is dynamic" (but not all)
"rock and roll is not necessarily degenerate"
Please hold your hands up and apologise.
Ian
On 10/14/05, Platt Holden <pholden@sc.rr.com> wrote:
>
> > [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.
>
> Good. That's the only point I was trying to make.
>
> [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.
>
> IMO the invention of the assembly line improved the quality of life for
> millions around the world, not only because it multiplied the amount of
> goods that could be produced, but because it furnished workers with the
> means to buy those goods.
>
> > [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.
>
> I have nothing to show otherwise other than pictures of him hob-nobbing
> with Henry Ford and Harvey Firestone who were not your average poor slobs.
>
> > 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.
>
> Walmart provides goods from all over the world at low prices, benefiting
> millions who, by their free choice as consumers, have made the Walton
> family wealthy and deservedly so. I don't know how much money I've saved
> by shopping at Walmart, but just the other day I bought a pound of
> hamburger there for $1 cheaper than at the local food market. Of course,
> the money I saved will be either spent or invested elsewhere to benefit
> other employers.
>
> > 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.
>
> Well now there you go. I don't think Eminem and Larry Flynt enriched
> culture, but then I don't think any purveyors of sex and rock and roll
> enrich culture. But, you'll recall the great debate we had about rock and
> roll that many here considered high quality while to me it represented a
> throwback to primitive jungle rituals. From this I reach three
> conclusions: 1) biological quality is a constant threat to cultural
> evolution, 2) there's no accounting for taste, and 3) if we want a free
> society, the consumer must remain king.
>
> As for your oft repeated premise that we're helpless pawns of power
> interests, it seems to me you've bought into, perhaps unknowingly, the
> modern movement where people unite under the a common banner of
> victimhood. You'll excuse me I'm sure for not joining in. :-)
>
> 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
>
>
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 : Fri Oct 14 2005 - 19:34:53 BST