From: Paul Vogel (nitzke@hotmail.com)
Date: Tue Jun 22 2004 - 21:09:27 BST
Hi All,
Johnny moral asks:
"For example, could it be said that Intellectual patterns such as equality,
fairness, cooperation and well, social-marxism are also responses to DQ, and
that these responses to DQ, while they don't "work better" at speeding
dynamic change and facilitating progress, "work better" at producing a
stable and mentally satisfying world that might be better at responding to
DQ on a personal relationship level, where it can actually be felt by us,
instead of by the Giant (had to come back to that "NYC is the Giant" thing,
sorry)."
You could say it, but, it still wouldn't be factually true that it would
produce a stable and mentally satisfying world that might be better at
responding to DQ on either the individual or Giant level.
Most especially, "social-marxism", whose Human Racial Equality dogmatism has
created the "disaster" in the first place!
Best regards,
Paul Vogel
http://www.cosmotheism.net
>From: "johnny moral" <johnnymoral@hotmail.com>
>Reply-To: moq_discuss@moq.org
>To: moq_discuss@moq.org
>Subject: MD Ability to respond to DQ/Success
>Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2004 17:35:37 +0000
>
>Hi Platt and All,
>
>Platt found proof that Pirsig favors free enterprise, and not just in
>theory:
>
>>Nonsense. Pirsig writes:
>>
>>"People, like everything else, work better in parallel than they do in
>>series, and that is what happens in THIS FREE ENTERPRISE CITY. When things
>>are organized socialistically in a bureaucratic series, any increase in
>>complexity increases the probability of failure. But when they're
>>organized in a free-enterprise parallel, an increase in complexity becomes
>>an increase in diversity more capable of responding to Dynamic Quality,
>>and thus an increase of the probability of success. It's this diversity
>>and parallelism that make this city work. And not just this city. Our
>>greatest national economic success, agriculture, is organized almost
>>entirely in parallel." (Lila, 17) (emphasis added)
>>
>>By "this free enterprise city" Pirsig is speaking about the existing New
>>York, not some theoretical Utopia.
>>
>>Wouldn't you think that in a site dedicated to Pirsig that contributors
>>would actually read what he wrote once in awhile?
>>
>>Best,
>>Platt
>
>So OK, let's agree that a free enterprise system, such as the existing one,
>responds better to DQ, than planned economies, which, due to having to
>stick to the plan, are shut off from DQ. (Of course this is a matter of
>degree, they both rely on planning, or at least on assumptions of future
>stability, and both are capable of changing the plan if something's not
>working.)
>
>My question is, who is this better response to DQ better for? What
>benefits? Everyone? The system? The economy? The intellectual patterns
>of the system? Intellectual patterns in general? Social patterns? People
>in general? A few people in particular? Quality/Morality itself?
>
>And my other question is, should the abiity for [what?] to respond to DQ
>necessarily be maximized? Is it always right, more moral, to support things
>that "work better"? Or are there not other instances of responding to DQ
>that might be thwarted when other responses are maximized? For example,
>could it be said that Intellectual patterns such as equality, fairness,
>cooperation and well, social-marxism are also responses to DQ, and that
>these responses to DQ, while they don't "work better" at speeding dynamic
>change and facilitating progress, "work better" at producing a stable and
>mentally satisfying world that might be better at responding to DQ on a
>personal relationship level, where it can actually be felt by us, instead
>of by the Giant (had to come back to that "NYC is the Giant" thing,
>sorry).
>
>I think that the right answer to the first question, or the proper answer,
>should be for Quality/Morality to benefit. Above all else, we should
>always act in Quality/Morality's best interest, and love for love's sake.
>And so my answer to the second question is that all patterns should be
>respected and continued, and we should not give one intellectual pattern
>automatic default priority over other ones, or contnue patterns which have
>a detrimental effect on other patterns, whatever level they are. So in
>this case, I think it is right to respect patterns of freedom in
>enterprise, allowing people to do what they want, but within reason. We
>should not allow their efforts to contribute to run-away patterns which
>threaten the survival of other patterns. Nor should we allow patterns of
>caring for the less fortunate to threaten survival of the pattern of
>letting people do what they want. If doing that becomes complicated and
>inefficient, and holds back progress a little bit, I think it is worth it,
>because Morality is preserved and enhanced. It just takes more effort.
>
>Johnny
>
>_________________________________________________________________
>FREE pop-up blocking with the new MSN Toolbar – get it now!
>http://toolbar.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200415ave/direct/01/
>
>
>
>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
>
_________________________________________________________________
FREE pop-up blocking with the new MSN Toolbar – get it now!
http://toolbar.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200415ave/direct/01/
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 : Tue Jun 22 2004 - 21:46:35 BST