From: David Buchanan (DBuchanan@ClassicalRadio.org)
Date: Sun Jul 11 2004 - 23:09:17 BST
Dan, msh, Arlo and all MOQers:
'The Metaphysics of Quality does definitely imply that, other things being
equal, an employee-owned company is more moral than a privately owned
company for the same reason that a democracy is more moral than a
dictatorship. Both enhance intellectual freedom within a traditional static
social pattern and thus are a higher form of evolution. Employee ownership
also appeals to the old Indian idea of community of equals that allows
maximum freedom for all.' (Pirsig, 1991a)
Dan G responded to the quote above:
I tend to disagee with Mr. Pirsig's analogy...
...because I fail to understand: why is it more moral
for my employees to own the business rather than me? Would they put their
blood, sweat and tears into the company the way I have? I tend to doubt it.
That's why they're employees! Even my best most trusted ones. They can go
home at the end of the day and forget business. I can't. The business
follows me around. Would I sell my company to the employees? Sure, for the
right price. You better believe it. But would they really be interested in
being the owners? And the $64.000 question: Could they run it profitably?
Again, I tend to doubt it. If they were cut out to be business owners they
would be already, in my opinion.
...I started the business, you see; it's like a child to me. A dictator of a
country did not start the country. I think that's where the analogy fails.
dmb says:
I'm disappointed and disturbed by your response, Dan. You not only failed to
address the main idea, (That employee-owned companies are more moral because
they "enhance intellectual freedom" and allow "maximum freedom for all") but
also seem to be justifying your disagreement by simply insulting those who
are being denied membership in a "community of equals". They wouldn't care,
wouldn't be interested and couldn't turn a profit because they're not "cut
out to be business owners"!? How condescending is that!? Dan, I thought you
were a philosopher! I'm shock and a little bummed out by this position.
The first thing that springs to mind here is that your main defense (That
you are more concerned and involved than anyone else can be because you
started it, its your baby and you're the one who goes hungry when business
is slow.) is actually the same incentive that makes employee-owned companies
work. A stake in the game is a powerful motivator and so ownership turns
mere employees into dedicated particpants. They become partners rather than
servants and the whole dynamic changes. The positive emotional,
psychological and spiritual effects are hard to measure, but there is also
the plain fact that everyone would then be sincerely interested in turning a
profit and in doing so for as long as possible. Don't you think?
Another point that goes along with this is that the quote suggests the idea
that employee-own companies allow the 4th level in the mix while the usual
business is based on "mindless tradition" of the social and money is a pure
and simple "index of social quality". Likewise, your defense is aimed
squarely at profit and price rather than quality relationships within the
organization and the organization's relationship to the larger community.
This is hardly out of the ordinary, but, like I said, I thought you were a
philosopher and so ordinary is very disappointing. I would have hoped that
the MOQ's distinctions would have had more of an impact on your views and
values with respect to life's practical concerns...
"What Phaedrus saw was that the Metaphysics of Quality avoided this attack
by making it clear that the good to which truth is subordinate is
intellectual and Dynamic Quality, not practicality. The misunderstanding of
James occurred because there was no clear intellectual framework for
distinguishing social quality from intellectual and Dynamic Quality, and in
his Victorian lifetime they were monstrously confused. But the MOQ states
that practicality is a social pattern of good. It is immoral for truth to be
subordinated to social values since that is a lower form of evolution
devouring a higher one."(CH 29)
Thanks,
dmb
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 - 23:11:40 BST