From: David Morey (us@divadeus.freeserve.co.uk)
Date: Sat Jul 10 2004 - 21:41:58 BST
Paul: 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.
DM: That looks like where we are to me.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul Turner" <paul@turnerbc.co.uk>
To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Sent: Friday, July 09, 2004 8:55 AM
Subject: RE: MD the metaphysics of self-interest
> 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 - horse@darkstar.uk.net
>
> To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
> http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
>
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 11 2004 - 00:03:05 BST