From: Arlo J. Bensinger (ajb102@psu.edu)
Date: Wed Oct 19 2005 - 23:02:36 BST
From bad logic, Platt, to even worse rhetorical distortion...
[Platt]
Conclusion poor logic, Arlo. Flynt and Eminem haven't demeaned the culture
by demanding restrictions on the free market like you want.
[Arlo]
Boy oh boy. Here we go again. Arlo, despite saying or suggesting anything of the
sort, is the Big Evil Liberal coming to take away your freedom. What I *have*
suggested, right in line and agreement with Pirsig, is that by getting people
to see Quality (to have a dialogue for it, as Pirsig lamented in ZMM), the free
market would naturally stop moving all the junk it currently is, both in
production and consumption. The reason there is so much junk in production and
consumption gets right back to the heart of Quality, and what Pirsig had to say
in ZMM. Neither Pirsig nor I would support "banning" junk from the market, but
give people a means to see Quality and the junk would disappear.
[Arlo previously]
By this reasoning, you're attack on free marketeers Eminem and Larry Flynt is an
attack on the free market.
[Platt]
I made it clear that certain parts of the free market are not to my
liking. But, unlike you, I support the free market. You don't. You assault
it. You'd like to substitute a Quality market ruled by Arlo.
[Arlo]
Where is that heralded evidence to this accusation that you cast out so readily
to your antagonists?
[Arlo previously]
(If Sam Walton enriched the culture by providing goods people purchase)then
Eminem and Larry Flynt are culturally enriching people too. Yes?
[Platt]
For some, yes. Not for me.
[Arlo]
So, now "jobs" and "culturally enriching" are both relative. Tell me, why are
these things relative? Are you the arbiter of what's relative and what's not?
But, tell me, if Sam Walton and Larry Flynt have both enriched the culture, what
about the drug lords who continue to overcome "legislative hurdles" to bring
their goods to a desiring, and willing, customer base. Have they enriched the
culture too? Millions of customers, millions in profits, seems to me by your
logic then that would be a resounding "yes". Or are their enriching gifts
"relative" as well?
[Platt]
No. Man behaves with a profit-focus because of his nature. He naturally wants to
keep what he earns for himself, his family and those he values, and to buy the
goods/services that enable him to earn more to have and do the things he
considers to be of Quality. He is not an ant who works for some nameless,
faceless human hive as you seem to think would be ideal.
[Arlo]
Round and round, avoid and evade. Okay, then Pirsig (and Mother Theresa)
overcame his nature? Is that good? Bad? Indifferent? If what you say is true,
and Pirsig acted on this "nature", we'd have no ZMM, no Lila. Seems to me if
man really did act on this "nature", we'd be much worse off. When the published
said to Pirsig "this book won't sell, so you won't get anything", Pirsig
would've walked away (after all, no money, no profit, why bother). Which means
no Lila either.
So, back to the question. Since Pirsig's labor was motivated by the desire to
enrich the social (ZMM) and Intellectual (Lila) culture, why shouldn't we hold
that up as a normal, meaningful, Quality, source of motivation? Why make
everyone out to be selfish pricks who would only write and publish a book if
they got money? Why make Pirsig an abnoral exception (which I don't think he
is) instead of someone who rose above the static-level desire for wealth?
[Platt]
I don't think you or Pirsig are in any position to judge whether some jobs
are better than others. You can say "I wouldn't want that job" but that's
as far as you can go IMO.
[Arlo]
Then... it's all relative?
[Platt]
As far as one's work, yes. I don't think you or Pirsig or anyone else
should be telling others that their work is worthless.
[Arlo]
As I said above, what makes this relative? Why can't we talk about Quality and
labor? Because it sounds Marxist? If Pirsig was wrong to talk about labor and
Quality (the central premise of ZMM, by the way), then with what things can we
talk about Quality?
I'd side with Pirsig on this, there is a lot of "junk" in production and
consumption (and not just of material nature). I think this is directly
attributable to the same dialogic malady Pirsig saw in ZMM. The SOMist modes of
production and consumption continue, stronger than ever, and the Unity offered
by Quality in bringing the subject (laborer or consumer) and the object (work
or purchasing) together has not happened.
The "funeral procession" Pirsig saw on the Interstate has infiltrated the back
roads, indeed, is seemingly embraced by those who glee in watching the small
shops and cafes that Pirsig found Higher Quality turn into the Box-Marts and
Appleby's Ruby Gardens of the Interstate. And even decried by agent
provocateurs among us to be of Higher Quality (for their servitude to corporate
masters) than the craftsman, entrepreneurial workmen who, as Pirsig applauded,
are identifed, able to make decisions, respond in their labor activity, walk
away and come back as Quality demands.
But, hey, what's a "funeral procession" or two if you can get your meat a buck
per pound cheaper.
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 : Thu Oct 20 2005 - 05:36:44 BST