From: johnny moral (johnnymoral@hotmail.com)
Date: Wed Jun 23 2004 - 23:21:34 BST
Hi Platt,
OK, thanks for finding things to agree with me about. I agree with your
points as well. I could leave it at that, but how satisfying is that? So
comments are interspersed.
>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.
And also for the reason I forgot to cite, that of working in parallel, aka
people trying all sorts of things and competing and some failing and some
succeeding. It's not that people in planned economies have no incentive to
try new ideas, for they surely get just as frustrated with low quality and
just as inspired to improve it in order to evolve quality and improve life,
but people in free enterprise systems just have a lot more incentive,
regardless of quality or inspiration, as they could go out of business if
they don't sell more than the other guys. High quality tends to sell more
and latch, but so do gimmicks and advertising.
> > 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.
"Evolution of" being key for you, that's interesting. I think that might
add too much personal subjective direction, and almost makes the answer to
the question "me," since it is not Quality/Morality, but its evolution that
benefits. I'm not sure leaving out "evolution of" would avoid the charge
of subjectivism, but to me it seems more mindful and respectful and true to
do so. I think it gets at fundamental religious questions of faith, like
Job had in the Bible. Instead of "evolution", I prefer Jonathon Edwards'
"self-enlargement" of God, or my "strengthening of Morality", because I
think it puts the glory and respect for Quality/Morality on morality, not on
us. It doesn't have the problem that "process theology" is said to have, of
implying that God is not yet perfect and is in process of becoming better.
When God self-enlarges (by consciousness becoming more conscious of more of
God), or Morality strengthens (by increasing the quantity of expectations
and expectations becoming higher quality, more correct), it doesn't imply
that it had needed improvement, it only implies that it's constantly growing
in its own joy and glory and happiness with itself. Perhaps it's semantics,
but I think there's also something central to age-old debates about faith
there too.
> > And my other question is, should the ability 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 agree that being fair and cooperating are social patterns of value, yes,
but fairness and cooperation as ideals, as stated principles to be followed,
could those not be said to be intellectual values? Perhaps that's
stretching? But then what about equality before the law? That is a
principle also, and surely derived from the same sort of observation of a
social pattern of giving people equality before the law. Though it may seem
that it wasn't practiced socially at all until it was intellectualized, I
think that it probably started to be practiced socially and was then
expanded when people saw that it was good and ought to be a principle, same
as fairness and cooperation were.
But please focus again on that second question, the subject of the thread,
if you will: Should the ability to respond to DQ be maximized? I mean, as
in, remove all regulations, all impediments to business such as taxes which
support society's dullards and dimwits, be completely laissez faire,
capitalist? Products and technology and quality of life for the rich might
improve dramatically. Or would that just have a long term deleterious
effect of the ability of Quality to evolve, and that's why we shouldn't do
that? So if the key to maximizing would then be to do that just below the
threshold of causing the long term deleterious effect, then should that be
done? Or is there any value in holding back the evolution of Quality so as
to make Quality better for more people? I think that gets back to the
difference between evolution and self-enlargement/strengthening. Quality
can be self-enlarged and strengthened within itself, by enabling more people
to experience DQ and beauty in their lives, if the advancement of the
cutting edge of quality doesn't go as fast.
> > 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.
I agree that reflects 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.
It's funny, you don't find "love" at all in the MoQ, do you?
> > 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.
As long as it survives, then, it's OK? How about maximizing its health?
Does a thriving society appeal to you? Or do you just want intellectual
values to thrive?
> > 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."
Um, is that what I said? :-) I think I was trying to strike more of a
balance...
Take care,
Johnny
_________________________________________________________________
MSN Movies - Trailers, showtimes, DVD's, and the latest news from Hollywood!
http://movies.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200509ave/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 : Wed Jun 23 2004 - 23:33:21 BST