Re: MD the metaphysics of free-enterprise

From: Platt Holden (pholden@sc.rr.com)
Date: Sat Jul 03 2004 - 15:42:43 BST

  • Next message: Joe: "MD SQ-SQ tension in Human relationships (again)"

    Hi Anthony,

    Thanks for furnishing more information about Harris in answer to my
    request. I appreciate the time and trouble you took.

    I'll refrain from commenting on the specifics of your post because it
    occurred to me that a larger issue may be at stake. At the beginning of
    your post your wrote:

    > I think the primary consideration is to
    > concentrate on improving the general quality of life (i.e. by employing the
    > MOQ) rather than getting too hung up on any previous economic systems.

    This and your support of socialism and mine of capitalism brings up a
    more general question that I hope you (and perhaps others) will comment
    on, namely the following quote from Lila, Chap. 29 in which Pirsig writes:

    "He wanted particularly to see how much actual evidence there was for the
    statement that James's whole purpose was to "unite science and religion."
    That claim had turned him against James years ago, and he didn't like it any
    better now. When you start out with an axe like that to grind, it's almost
    guaranteed that you will conclude with something false. The statement
    seemed more like some philosophological simplification written by someone
    with a weak understanding of what philosophy is for. To put philosophy in the
    service of any social organization or any dogma is immoral. It's a lower form
    of evolution trying to devour a higher one." (Lila, 29)

    If our mutual "ax to grind" is using the MOQ to "improve the general
    quality of life" are we, in effect, "putting philosophy in the service of
    a social organization--you in socialism and me in capitalism--with dogmas
    attending both sides?

    Perhaps your study of the MOQ and correspondence with Pirsig will shed
    some light on whether we, in asserting our strong but opposing political
    views using the MOQ as support, are in some sense employing a "lower form
    of evolution to devour a higher one."

    If not, then it's back to the fun of arguing about the relative merits and
    moral values of our respective positions, drawing upon the MOQ for
    validity when it suits our purpose.

    Thanks,
    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 : Sat Jul 03 2004 - 15:41:04 BST