From: gav (gav_gc@yahoo.com.au)
Date: Sun Jul 04 2004 - 12:48:04 BST
i agree with platt here: it is immoral for the MOQ to
be used as a support for any ideology.
even though capitalism sits well with free markets it
is as static as socialism in other ways:
capitalism prefers kitsch to art - generally more
popular and therefore profitable; capitalism values an
obedient and predictable populace - better for
business.
the overriding moral principle of the MOQ is DQ/sq:
the code of art. both capitalism and socialism (and
any ideology) *appropriate* art for their own ends -
lower devouring higher.
socialist kitsch art seems pretty silly nowadays,
even though it was the velvet glove around an iron
fist only decades ago.
capitalism has a velvet glove too: advertising.
it is the job of philosophy to take the gloves off.
ding ding!
Platt Holden <pholden@sc.rr.com> wrote: > 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
>
>
Find local movie times and trailers on Yahoo! Movies.
http://au.movies.yahoo.com
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 : Sun Jul 04 2004 - 12:50:20 BST