From: Platt Holden (pholden@sc.rr.com)
Date: Tue Oct 25 2005 - 14:26:14 BST
> [Platt]
> Do I detect Marxism waiting in the wings to be brought on stage when the
> moment is right?
>
> [Arlo]
> I make no bones about seeing a parallel in thought between Pirsig and Marx
> on labor and Quality in production and consumption, and how the last
> century of amoral SOM has effected the production and consumption of goods.
I thought so.
> From craftsmanship and identification with the object of one's labor, and
> power over the "flow" of decisions, to the building-in of this cultural
> defect "into the products" (as Pirsig demonstrated) to a marketplace
> overloaded with "junk", and no means for a cultural recognition of the
> problem (SOMist language restrictions). The "funeral procession of the
> Interstates", as Pirsig discusses in ZMM, is a funeral procession of
> alienated labor, which is a natural part of the larger disconnect caused by
> an inability to recognize Quality in the cultural language, itself the
> SOMist problem of the last century*.
>
> * I say the last century, because although Aristotelian SOM dates back to
> the ancient Greeks, until this century social morality (religion mostly)
> did offer a "Good". When that was overturned by Intellect, the value-free
> SOM was given charge of society. Hence, although the SOMist problem dates
> back centuries (as discussed in ZMM), it is magnified drastically in this
> last century. All the defects discussed in ZMM and Lila focus on the last
> century as one where an absence of Quality has become critically profound.
As I look around America today I see the the most productive nation in the
world with the highest standard of living, not a a plethora of "defects"
and an "overload of junk." You seem to want to turn back the clock to the
era of high prices and low productivity of mon-and-pop stores, sacrificing
the lifting of all boats through economies of globalization and size (as
in Walmart) for the sake of a self-proclaimed notion of quality. Thanks
but no thanks.
> [Platt on the Joys of Unfettered Capitalism in Bringing Freedoms to Tijuana
> that We In Our Socialized State Lack]
> From Wikipedia: "Due to Tijuana's proximity to the USA and its cheap
> labor, it is an attractive city for companies to establish extensive
> industrial parks comprised of maquiladoras, factories situated near the
> border to produce for export. Foreign and domestic companies employ
> thousands in these plants, usually in assembly related labor. Such jobs are
> demanding and ill-paid by first-world standards, but quite attractive to
> many Mexicans.
>
> [Arlo]
> If this is so much better, why don't many "first-world" people demand to be
> like them?
To Mexicans who have suffered under the heel of abusive governments for
generations, it is indeed "so much better." In time, so long as free
markets are allowed, Mexico will gain first-world status.
> [Platt continues]
> This makes Tijuana a popular city for poor migrant workers from other parts
> of Mexico, as well as other countries to the south."
>
> [Arlo]
> That near-abject poverty and servitude to corporations providing sub-first
> world standards is better than abject poverty is missing the point.
It's precisely the point. If you want to improve the lot of people in
third world countries, you get the government off the backs of the people
and let free enterprise flourish.
> If your
> theory (that returning to an 1890s workplace is higher Quality) is correct,
> then they should be doing better than us, not existing by standards that no
> "American" would want to live under.
It's only recently that free enterprise has been allowed in Mexico with
remarkable results. Since 1995, the population below the poverty level has
decreased from 24.2% to 17.6% in the general population and from 42% to
27.9% in rural areas. (Source: World Bank) I'm encouraged by what I've
seen of Mexicans in the U.S. Like those who built this country they don't
sit around waiting for a handout from the government but work hard, many
at jobs that no "American" will take. Given that willingness to work, and
so long as their government minds its own business, I think Mexico will
become a first-world country before long.
> [Arlo previously]
> Are drug lords enriching the culture? Is "enrichment" relative, like you
> seem to indicate?
>
> [Platt responded]
> Well, I guess to some they are. To me, no.
>
> [Arlo then...]
> So, relativism is relative? If "enriching the culture" is relative, then I
> take it pretty much everybody enriches the culture. Which makes it
> meaningless. Pirsig is no better than a drug lord in this respect. Well, to
> you maybe, but since its all relative, that doesn't say much.
>
> [Platt]
> Those out to "enrich the culture" bear watching. They usually carry a gun
> behind their back.
>
> [Arlo]
> ??? How does that answer the question?
What's the question? All I or you or Pirsig can do is give your opinion
about the quality of anything. One man's junk is another man's treasure.
One woman's drug-induced insight is another woman's crash. If that's
"relativism is relative," so be it. It happens to be true, and Pirsig is
the first to say so.
"The reason there is a difference between individual evaluations of
quality is that although Dynamic Quality is a constant, these static
patterns are different for everyone because each person has a different
static pattern of life history. Both the Dynamic Quality and the static
patterns influence his final judgment. That is why there is some
uniformity among individual value judgments but not complete uniformity."
(SODV)
[Arlo previously]
> I know how much you'd like to sidetrack the question, but I'm not going to
> bite. If Pirsig acted unnaturally in authoring and publishing ZMM, how did
> he come to this unnatural act? Genes? Social upbringing? Culture?
>
> [Platt]
> I have no idea. I don't pretend to know what motivates people to do things.
> Why do you ask? And why did you ignore my question about making money?
>
> [Arlo]
> You certainly do pretend to know what motivates people. You said
> straight-out, "profit". If Pirsig's motivation was unnatural (i.e., not
> profit-driven), how was it that he came to this strange and bizarre
> motivation?
I don't know what motivates individuals like you or Pirsig or George Bush
or Mother Teresa. But generally people are motivated by that which gives
them a sense of well-being which in most cases involves earning money to
provide for themselves and those they value, and to buy things that give
them pleasure like Harelys. :-)
> About money, I think social-conditioning makes "profit" (money) the
> prime-motivator, but I believe this to be "unnatural". On the
> biological-level, the primary motivator is self-interest. But the
> social-level was formed to overcome this. You want to retreat back to it, I
> say promoting biological-level self-interest as the Highest Human Motivator
> is not only disingenuous, but destructive. I believe "social beings" are
> naturally motivated to improve and enrich their society. Only an unnatural
> reversion to biological-level motivation condemns that. Pirsig acted in the
> normal way I would expect a social-level individual to act, motivated by a
> higher goal than self-interest. Something that belongs part of social
> Quality dialogue, and not perverted by those who wish to revert motivation
> (responding to Quality) to biological-level drives.
Whether you like to admit or not, those aspire to a"higher goal" than self-
interest do so out of self-interest. Just look at your "public servants."
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 -
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 25 2005 - 14:31:55 BST