From: Platt Holden (pholden@sc.rr.com)
Date: Thu Nov 03 2005 - 23:12:34 GMT
>[Arlo]
> But let's back-up a bit, if we can, to a broader question. The perspective
> I am coming from is this. In ZMM, the crisis arose as a result of an
> "amoral" (in the sense of an inability to see value) metaphysics that has
> been given a dominant cultural position.
In my understanding, the "crisis" was not that SOM had no provision for
marketplace values (goods and services) but no provision for morals, i.e.
personal behavior patterns. Thus, intellectuals hobnobbed with criminals
during the 60's because they had no rational basis to distinguish between
a Mother Teresa and a terrorist. That's why even today we have college
professors cheering on al Qaeda "insurgents."
> The modes of production and
> consumption currently dominating society evolved as a result of this same
> amoral intellect. Pirsig's "goal" in ZMM, was give people a dialogue,
> centered on Quality, that would enable them to overcome the amoral
> production and consumption manifest in the culture.
I took a different message away from ZMM. Pirsig's goal was to resolve the
conflict between classical and romantic worldviews, between science and
art.
> Backing up one step further, I see the "amoral" SOM dominance to be
> manifest across cultural activity.
Whereas I see SOM dominance manifested primarily in the inability of
intellectuals to come to a rational agreement on standards of morality,
not on standards of light bulbs or haircuts.
> From all our posts, I can't see where you see this crisis as having any
> effect on society, except perhaps to produce "liberals". I'm not kidding.
> My feeling is that if you were to describe your MOQ-based world, a world in
> which the MOQ is the guiding metaphysics, read and understood by everyone,
> the ONLY change you'd point out is that "all liberals would disappear".
Not at all. What would be the fun of having everyone agree on everything,
including what's right and wrong, good and bad? What would disappear in my
MOQ world would be reliance on religion, tradition or emotions to set
moral standards. Instead, we would have a rational basis for determining
such standards.
> I'm suggesting that advertising as we know it would significantly change,
> because the manipulative effects of advertising would be useless on a MOQ
> society. People would have a language to critically assess value, something
> Pirsig started with ZMM. The would see through the "stylized syrup" with
> clarity, having a cultural means to see Quality. In short, if John
> Sutherland has since read and accepted ZMM, my guess is that he's rethought
> his position on the shim, to one where he sees the Quality inherent in the
> shim, and not in the veneer of style applied to "Official Shim Products".
I really don't know what you mean by "having the language to critically
assess value?" Do you mean having familiarity with the MOQ moral structure
in order to judge on rational basis the morality of a person's behavior?
> What are the ill-effects of SOM in society? Why should we argue for a
> "better" perspective? Pirsig had several keen insights in ZMM, of which I
> agree, on why a Quality-rooted language would improve people's lives. From
> the realignment of labor practice, to better consumer products, to better
> consumption, the defects created in production and consumption by SOM is
> outlined and challenged. You deny this, saying there are no defects in
> production and consumption. I'm saying Pirsig was correct. The effects of
> SOM were culturally spread throughtout all forms of activity.
Again, I wonder how a "Quality-rooted language" would differ from
ordinary language we use everyday. We already have language for quality
vs. crap, excellence vs. second-rate, class vs. schlock, etc.
> [Platt]
> The value of free speech trumps any material values you claim are being
> manipulated to society's detriment.
>
> [Arlo]
> Was Pirsig against "free speech" when he criticized the "junk" in
> production and consumption in America? Not at all. In fact, he was for
> expanding speech to include Quality. That would be the solution I'd
> support. And in this world, manipulative advertising would go "out the
> window".
That's what I'm afraid of. Who determines what is "manipulative"
advertising?
> [Platt]
> You use the word "manipulation" as if the average person is a puppet on a
> string, incapable of independent judgment. I object to this elitist
> characterization of the masses as being inherently stupid.
>
> [Arlo]
> Of course you do. Even though I am saying nothing different than you.
> People are "too busy" (your words) to look into the source of their morals.
> My statement that people are "too busy" to look into the source of their
> values is an identical statement. Like Pirsig, I believe that no one is
> stupid, merely cast in a culture without a language for recognizing
> Quality. Like Pirsig, I believe that anyone appropriating "Quality" as the
> source of the world would easily see the defects of the culture, the way
> Pirsig did, the way many do.
Again you blame language for what you see as a "crises" in the
marketplace. You seem to think by changing the symbols we use, we can
change the world. That's what propagandists believe.
> Look, I know the tactic of accusation here (espousing that Arlo thinks
> everyone is stupid) is a common tactic on right-wing radio, but let's drop
> it here, okay? Everyone knows its just a red herring that is not only
> OPPOSITE of what I say, but merely an attempt to distract. I don't accuse
> you of this stuff, so don't try to use these tactics on me, okay?
Could it be you don't accuse me of this stuff because I don't consider
people too dumb (or too busy) not to see through so called "manipulative
advertising?" If it's the OPPOSITE of what you say, then people are indeed
smart enough not to be fooled by advertising, and thus it presents no
"crisis" as you seem to think.
> [Arlo]
> That phrase, "learning strange poses of style and glamour vended by dream
> magazines and other mass media, and paid for by the vendors of substance",
> nails it on the head. Pirsig saw it. And although Platt tries to deny it, I
> think Pirsig was on the mark.
>
> [Platt]
> This is nothing more than a repeat of the T.S. Eliot's "Wasteland" that was
> highly popular in colleges lit departments in the 50's when it was consider
> the height of intellectual acumen to sneer at so called "consumerism." I
> see that nothing has changed much since then.
>
> [Arlo]
> Well, you're right about the fact that nothing's changed. But I'm siding
> with Pirsig on this. I don't think he was duped by 50's lit departments. I
> think this observation is right in line with his thinking on Quality.
> Indeed, that line could be the summation for ZMM's entire thesis. People
> had no language to see Quality, it having been torn apart from production
> and consumption, and replaced with syruped style, Quality was regulated to
> the tinsel on the tree, rather than seeing that Quality was the source of
> the tree itself.
A Christmas without tinsel? Please. The world you seem to want is a world
without any useless baubles at all, a world without ribbons and wrapping
paper and syrupy greeting cards. I mean, you seem to ask, "Why have a
variety of choices in teacups when one style would serve the purpose?" If
this be your brave new world, count me out. I prefer my tea poured from a
silver service into a bone china teacup, thank you very much. As Stephen
King said, "There is fine Waterford crystal which rings delicately when
struck no matter how thick and chunky it may look, and then there are
Flintstone jelly glasses. You can drink your Dom Perignon out of either
one, but friends, there is a difference."
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
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 04 2005 - 07:51:19 GMT