Re: MD Cooperation, Profit and Some Thoughts

From: Arlo J. Bensinger (ajb102@psu.edu)
Date: Sat Oct 22 2005 - 23:45:11 BST

  • Next message: Matt Kundert: "Re: MD Rhetoric"

    [Platt]
    Choosing your own doctor is not an option under universal health care. You go
    where you are assigned, and wait in line for months to get treated. Everyone in
    the U.S. get's health care without the lessening of quality inherent in
    nationalized systems.

    [Arlo]
    So what's your point? That a good system of health care has yet to be proposed?
    I might agree. But I see no reason why we can't provide health care to all who
    need it, and still maintain your option to see whatever doctor you wish.

    [Platt on being a relativist]
    Pretty much so as regards products and services. As for morality, no.

    [Arlo]
    Why is morality not an aspect of products and services?

    [Platt on the crisis described in ZMM]
    That's surface stuff. For the current culture crises caused by today's
    intellectuals, read Chapter 24 of Lila.

    [Arlo]
    A chapter versus an entire book. Hmm. But I don't disagree. Let me ask you this.
    If the crisis of Lila is the past 100 years of ammorality brought on by a SOM
    incapable of dealing with morals, why is production and consumption during this
    same period "immune" to this amorality?

    That is, the "junk" of production and consumption is produced by the
    Intellectual amorality brought forth by the SOM. Has the "business world" in
    your opinion been unaffected, or is immune, to this? Pirsig didn't think so,
    and devoted an entire book to examining the fallout (in produciton and
    consumption) of the post-Industrial revolution (1900-present) amorality in
    production and consumption.

    [Platt]
    As for taxes, we agree. As for back to the 1890, yes, people were more
    free from government interference then.

    [Arlo]
    And look at what world most people lived in. Hardly one I'd want to go back to.
    "Free from government interference", maybe, but enslaved by necessity and
    servitude.

    [Arlo]
    Then who declared them "relative"? What about them makes them so? And other
    things "not"? And you avoided my question, are drug lords "enriching the
    culture" by virtue of their desired product and amount of sales? Is that a
    relative answer too?

    [Platt]
    Don't you think drugs should be legalized? I mean, don't we need more
    people hallucinating so they too can create a new metaphysics like Pirsig?

    [Arlo]
    We certainly could use more people having illuminating experiences like Pirsig
    did with the peyote, that led to the MOQ. But you avoided the question. Are
    drug lords enriching the culture? Is "enrichment" relative, like you seem to
    indicate?

    [Platt]
    I know. You want to change human nature. Lotsa luck. I prefer to work with it,
    like the natural human desire to be free. .

    [Arlo]
    So, Pirsig defied human nature with his decision to author and publish outside
    of money and fame profit?

    Let me ask you straight-out, since you've avoid the question every other way.
    Was whatever motivated Pirsig unnatural or natural?

    [Platt]
    I don't see that Pirsig was out to "fix" the free market. He was out
    "fix" morality, rescuing it from the barren wasteland it has become due to SOM..

    [Arlo]
    And you are saying the "free market" is immune to the "barren wasteland" of SOM
    that effected everything else? Pirsig did not think so. Hence ZMM.

    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 : Sun Oct 23 2005 - 00:13:52 BST