From: Arlo Bensinger (ajb102@psu.edu)
Date: Mon Jul 12 2004 - 22:05:00 BST
Hi Dan,
I think we've crossed our lines, so to speak.. the trouble with "threaded
discussions". Let me just clarify and respond briefly.
>>Obviously the question was "loaded". Let me address your responses, and
>>then I'd
>>like to bring some discussion back to labor alienation and ZMM.
>
>Hi Arlo
>
>I'm not sure my response pertained to ZMM nor will this one. LILA is what
>we're discussing, right?
I don't really separate the two books, but I do find it more helpful to
return to ZMM frequently as it more about Quality (to me), and less about
that first metaphysical division (and subsequent divisions). Without an
understanding of what you are dividing (into static and Dynamic), the
divisions become pretty meaningless.
Consider that Platt said "What if Quality to me and my neighbors is money?"
Granted, he may have been speaking somewhat ironically, but Pirsig makes it
clear in ZMM that Quality/Tao/Dharma/Arete/Excellence/Virture are
synonymous, that "care" and "good" were terms to be brought into dualistic
SO modes of thinking, indeed, were the terms that would unite Subject and
Object. How anyone can ask that question who has read and understood ZMM is
a little disturbing to me.
But that's a digression, my original intent was to ponder ways to relate
Marx's concept of alienation to the alienated workplace Pirsig describes in
ZMM as a result of SOM. I do want to get back to that, as it is my main
area of interest...
>>Explain to me how slavery "at that time" had socially low value in the
>>south? I
>>think the "system" had very high social value. Did not Thomas Jefferson own
>>slaves? Also, take this above comment and change "slaves" to "labor in
>>Tijuana". Explain how this shifts the sentence from a "intellectually low
>>quality" to an "intellectual high quality" statement, or from an intellectual
>>to a social moral concern?
>
>First off, slavery isn't an economically viable system. It depends on the
>unremunerated labor of individuals unwilling to do the work in the first
>place. How many spit-laced meals do you think those slave owners consumed
>without knowing?
So your opinion is that slavery would have naturally collapsed economically
without any military or "force" on the slave owners. And the laws against
it can pretty much be dropped because who would return to an economically
unviable system?
>Second, Jefferson not only owned slaves, he fathered at least five
>children with at least one of his slaves. I think we could see this as
>biological level workings.
My question was meant to be rhetorical, of course its documented fact that
he owned slaves.
> From what I've read of Jefferson's writings, the concept of slavery
> troubled him intellectually, especially as he grew older. I think he
> freed his slaves evenutally, right? Or maybe not. Maybe he just
> considered freeing them. I'd have to look into the matter further.
>
>I don't think the workers in Tijuana are slaves in the same sense as in
>Jefferson's time. But again, I've never been there so I can't form a
>qualified opinion.
I am not saying they are. I'm suggesting (as you comment on below) that
slavery uses many weapons. We should consider others than the gun.
>> >
>>
>>No doubt. Would you not say Quality is lower from the Tijuanese workers
>>point of
>>view? Why should we "care" either way (slave or Tijuanese worker) if the
>>market's highest Quality is measured by profit?
>
>I don't know whether the quality is lower for the Tijuanese workers. Maybe
>it is. But one difference between them and the slaves is that the
>Tijuanese can leave their jobs there and search for better conditions,
>legally.
Well, I think this is a capitalist myth. Some leave, but many have families
and homes, and others have no means to leave. Plus, I think the conditions
economically are pretty much "bad" across much of Mexico (outside of
tourist areas). I'm not sure where you'd suggest they go. Unless it is the
USA...
>The slaves in Jefferson's time had no such recourse other than to
>illegally leave their owners and trust in systems like the underground
>railroad to deliver them into a better environment. If they were caught
>they would be hamstrung or worse. Not so with the Tijuanese. If they come
>north illegally seeking employment and are caught they may face
>deportation but we certainly don't hobble them, at least not to my knowledge.
So sending someone back to starve, or live a life of extreme poverty is
okay, so long as we don't hobble them? If American "intellectual morals"
(slavery is unjust) are truly "intellectual", wouldn't they apply to all of
mankind? If they apply only to American citizens, aren't they better
described as "social morals".
>I think there is a problem with your statement "the market's highest
>Quality is measured in profit." You're subordnating Quality to profit. In
>the MOQ and in my experience it's the other way around. The market's
>highest profit is measured by Quality.
Oooo... crossed path. I would never subordinate Quality to profit!!! I was
speaking ironically. Indeed, as I've said I fully think profit should be
subordinate to Quality every time.
I'm not sure how to read your statement "The market's highest profit is
measured by Quality". But change this to the Greek "arete" (as explained in
ZMM) and restate. "The market's highest profit is measured by Arete". I'm
not sure this makes sense.
>>Is creating a "level playing field" a layer of "stifling social
>>regulations" or
>>is it a moral issue on the intellectual level?
>
>The second.
Agreed.
>>Did abolishing slavery fully create this level playing field?
>
>No. That process is ongoing.
Agreed. Hence my criticisms of modern capitalism.
>If not, and if
>>creating a level playing field is still moral, why are discussions
>>surrounding
>>it reduced to "pesky social regulations"?
>
>Maybe they are pesky, until you need them to protect you. I suspect most
>who find them pesky are wanting to take some advantage that is being
>denied them.
Another "crossed path". The term "pesky social regulations" was a term
aimed at the notion that any and all regulations of free-enterprise where
an infringement on "honest traders". Funny, though, it's Platt who's deemed
them "pesky" (stifling was his exact word). Which makes me fully agree with
your observation "I suspect most who find them pesky are wanting to take
some advantage that is being denied them."
Amen.
>>It was intended as an oversimplification, to ask why it is "intellectually
>>moral" to free someone from slavery, but only a "social moral issue" to keep
>>the Tijuanese labor force impoverished (evidence: rates of pay so low
>>families
>>can't afford clean water).
>
>So was my answer. The "old south" didn't die with the end of the Civil
>War. Those social patterns still exist although not as blatantly as once.
>Those patterns are what is keeping the Tijuanese labor force impoverished
>but they will fade away in time. IMO.
You are optimistic. I envy that. I don't think they will fade away, at
least not until the dialogue changes.
>>I did mention that, it was my point. So is maximizing profit on the back
>>of an
>>oppressed people intellectually morally wrong? How is that not what Coke is
>>doing in Tijuana?
>
>It may have been your point but it seems to me that you're picking and
>choosing your poison. It may be a terrible thing what's happening in
>Tijuana, I don't know. But I suspect it will not change until the workers
>there unite and force the owners to pay them more.
A Marxist (or at least "socialist") thought! I fully agree with you here
too. Remember that some have advanced the notion that "labor unions" were a
form of socialism.
>> > >
>> > > >The "immorality" or "morality" of
>> > > > slavery is a static social issue, is it not?
>> >
>> > No. Slavery would seem an affront to the intellect, social, and biological
>> > slave. Slavery would seem to be an affront to the conscientious owner as
>> > well, though perhaps only socially and intellectually. That biological
>> drive
>> > though...
>> >
>>
>>Of course if would affront all levels from the slaves point. But here you
>>make a
>>curious statement. "Conscientious". Two points:
>>
>>(1) It seems to me some have argued that "conscientious" is a stifling social
>>layer of out-dated morality. Why is being concerned about the treatment
>>of the
>>slaves "conscientious", but concerned about the treatment of the Tijuanaese
>>"socialist"?
>
>It is not.
Thank you.
>>(2) Explain why we should have restricted the personal freedom of those
>>who did
>>not feel slavery was a social or intellectual affront. I would guess this was
>>the majority, or else the system would have collapsed from within, no?
>
>I'm not sure what you mean. I was using the MOQ to attempt an analyzation
>of slavery. The MOQ didn't exist a hundred and fifty years ago. The system
>DID collapse from within if you think about it.
I mean, why should we have forced those who saw slavery as high social and
intellectual value (there were many) to conform to the social or
intellectual codes of others? Isn't that an affront to "personal freedom"?
Arlo
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 : Tue Jul 13 2004 - 00:31:48 BST