From: Platt Holden (pholden@sc.rr.com)
Date: Wed Jun 23 2004 - 12:50:27 BST
Hi Johnny,
> 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.)
It's clear that Pirsig favors a free enterprise system for the reason you
cite.
> 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?
Evolution of 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).
Fairness and cooperation are social, not intellectual values. The
principle of equality refers, in the U.S., to equality before the law.
> I think that the right answer to the first question, or the proper answer,
> should be for Quality/Morality to benefit.
Right. I would add "evolution" to more fully reflect Pirsig's view.
> Above all else, we should
> always act in Quality/Morality's best interest, and love for love's sake.
I don't find "love for love's sake" in the MOQ.
> 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.
Intellectual ideas shouldn't threaten survival of society. Agree.
> Nor should we allow patterns of
> caring for the less fortunate to threaten survival of the pattern of
> letting people do what they want.
Right. No one should be forced against her will to care for the "less
fortunate."
Best regards,
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 : Wed Jun 23 2004 - 14:19:04 BST