From: Mark Steven Heyman (markheyman@infoproconsulting.com)
Date: Sun Jul 04 2004 - 23:12:06 BST
Hi Ant, David, Arlo, Gav, et al,
Great discussion guys! These are the ideas I was hoping would
develop in the "MOQ and Moral Evolution of Society" thread. But I'm
just as happy to see them here.
It sems that there are really two questions, one static, one dynamic:
1) Which of the existing "isms" results in the highest quality for
the most people?
Here's the usual MOQ pro-capitalist response:
'The free market… (prevents) static economic patterns from setting in
and stagnating economic growth. That is the reason the major
capitalist economies of the world have done so much better since
World War II than the major socialist economies.' (Pirsig, 1991,
p.225)
Although it's a mistake, as has been noted before, to equate
capitalism with a free market, let's allow that the "free" side of
capitalism displays a certain desirable level of dynamic quality.
But when Pirsig, or anyone says "the major capitalist economies of
the world have done so much better," we need to follow-up with the
question: "Better for whom?" In other words, what this quote and
others like it always ignore is the tremendous inequality that
results from so-called capitalist economies. There are people in the
US who would find life under Castro far superior to what they have
now: great health care, great education, housing and other basic
survival needs. Furthermore, this capitalist inequality is not just
an accident, it is absolutely necessary in any socio-economic system
that has as it's premise the idea that it's perfectly, morally OK for
one person to own EVERYTHING.
2) What new "ism" or no "ism" will offer a higher quality existence
for still more people?
For me, this is the important question, the one which inspired my
interest in the MOQ in the first place. Clearly, there is already a
well-defined SQ tension between capitalism and socialism. The answer
to question 2 will be discovered in finding a good Hegelian
resolution to this tension, or, to borrow from Mark Maxwell, finding
the "sweet spot," the confluence of two old SQ value patterns with
the new DQ-inspired idea that will make them obsolete.
And of course, this is the hard part. I believe such a confluence
might have occurred if Ho Chi Minh and the people of Vietnam had been
given the US support they asked for in seeking their self-
determination after WWII. It might have occurred, later, in Chile,
or Nicaragua or El Salvador. It still might occur in Chechyna or
Iraq or Tibet, though current events would seem to make this highly
unlikely
And there's the rub. So, the question for us MOQers is: "What can we
do to facilitate the discovery of the sweet spot?" One answer,
suggested many times, is to encourage, not impede, the free flow and
interaction of IDEAS.
What else?
Thanks to all,
Mark Steven Heyman (msh)
--
InfoPro Consulting - The Professional Information Processors
Custom Software Solutions for Windows, PDAs, and the Web Since 1983
Web Site: http://www.infoproconsulting.com
"Thought is only a flash between two long nights, but this flash is
everything." -- Henri Poincare'
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 - 23:08:10 BST