RE: MD the metaphysics of self-interest

From: Paul Turner (paul@turnerbc.co.uk)
Date: Fri Jul 09 2004 - 08:55:45 BST

  • Next message: Wim Nusselder: "Re: MD MOQ and The Moral Evolution of Society."

    Hi Platt

    Platt said:
    Well, since you (and Pirsig) have made it clear that's there's a
    distinction between Big Self and little self, and that little self is an
    intellectual pattern created by Big Self, I hesitate to buy into your
    premise here that there's such a thing as "self-interest" other than as
    an abstract concept.

    Paul:
    First, I think the "self" is a concept only to the degree that I think
    all static patterns are concepts - in that they are an abstraction from
    experience - real but not fundamental, the same as objects.

    Second, given the above, I think the MOQ defines "little self" as static
    patterns from all levels and "self-interest" as static biological-social
    quality - i.e. biological pleasure and satisfaction mixed with a
    preoccupation with social status, ego and wealth.

    Anyway, I was interested in your statement that self-interest may be
    detrimental to the achievement of corporate profit, which, incidentally,
    the MOQ also clearly defines as social quality. "...plain old money...,
    in the MOQ, is a pure and simple index of social quality." [Pirsig,
    Letter to Bo, Sept 15 2000]

    It seems to me there is a contradiction here - on the one hand you wave
    the flag for the freedom of the individual to pursue their own
    self-interest, and on the other you trumpet the virtues of capitalism.
    If we accept profit-making corporations as successful manifestations of
    capitalism, along with the explanation you have given for the relative
    failure of employee-owned organisations, we have a situation in which
    (at least one manifestation of) capitalism is threatened...by
    self-interest! Interesting.

    Platt said:
    Perhaps, and I throw this out only as a possibility, a CEO is more
    likely to be able to recognize his participation in the Big Self and
    thus, through greater recognition of arete, achieve better things for
    his company.

    Paul:
    I agree that this is a possibility, most likely in the smaller, more
    agile, enterprises, before the Dynamic gives way to the static trappings
    of gumption-sapping hierarchy, internal bureaucracy, and endless layers
    of middle management.

    Platt said:
    If, on the other hand, you view self-interest as a "real" motivating
    force, then you have tapped into the drive for "betterness" that
    characterizes all organisms and that, according to Pirsig, explains
    evolution better than the Darwinian principle of purposeless chance.

    Paul:
    As above, I think it is a completely real motivating force that fits
    neatly into the biological and social levels of evolution.

    Platt said:
    In regards to an employee-owned company, the tendency is for each
    employee to look after his own interests rather than the interests of
    the company as a whole. That's human nature.

    Paul:
    Whilst this may be so, in terms of the MOQ, this tendency is only man's
    biological and social nature. The MOQ makes it clear that intellectual
    patterns, and Dynamic Quality, are of a higher moral order and therefore
    can offer freedom from pure self-interest. By way of analogy, eating,
    killing or screwing anything we desired was once "human nature." Society
    has largely succeeded in controlling these biological impulses but it
    seems clear to me that intellect has not yet managed to control man's
    obsession with social quality. Perhaps, until this is the dominant case,
    employee-owned corporations will not be able to challenge the
    traditional corporation?

    Platt said:
    Do owners make mistakes? Sure. Are some owners crooks? Definitely. But
    employee representatives (union bosses) are no less susceptible to
    criminal behavior, nor are politicians, priests, trial lawyers or any
    other group you care to name.

    Paul:
    Ahh, the good old 'companions in guilt' defence.

    Cheers

    Paul

    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 -

    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 : Fri Jul 09 2004 - 08:56:19 BST