From: Dan Glover (daneglover@hotmail.com)
Date: Tue Jul 13 2004 - 17:59:31 BST
Hello everyone
>From: Arlo Bensinger <ajb102@psu.edu>
>Reply-To: moq_discuss@moq.org
>To: moq_discuss@moq.org
>Subject: Re: MD the metaphysics of free-enterprise
>Date: Mon, 12 Jul 2004 17:05:00 -0400
>
>Hi Dan,
>
>I think we've crossed our lines, so to speak.. the trouble with "threaded
>discussions". Let me just clarify and respond briefly.
>
>
>
>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.
Hi Arlo
To a lot of people, Quality is money, just like to many people Quality is
getting drunk and sitting in front of the tv night after night. For the
record I think the MOQ considers money a type of social level pattern of
value and getting drunk a biological pattern.
ZMM is a great book, possibly the most powerful book I've ever read. I find
LILA to be much more challenging though. I do separate the two books; I
don't see LILA as a cointinuation of ZMM but rather an expansion upon some
of the thinking outlined in RMP's first book.
>
>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...
I've not read much Marx. In ZMM, Robert Pirsig divides Quality into
Classical and Romantic with John Sutherland as a person stuck to and yet
alienated from his motorcycle. Do you think Marx would have been the same as
John? Or more like Phaedrus?
>
>>
>>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?
No, I didn't say that. I said slavery collapsed from within, if you think
about it. The Civil War brought about the end of slavery. By definition, a
civil war is an internal struggle within one country. Who would jump on a
motorcycle and ride across the country without knowing how to maintain it?
The same type of person might also return to an unviable economic system.
That's why there are still laws prohibiting slavery.
>
>
>>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...
Well what should we do then? Should the rich old Uncle from the north send
plenty of money south of the border to prop up the economy? I'd like to hear
your opinions on how to solve the poverty problems in the world.
>
>
>>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 don't think slavery being unjust is only a set of American intellectual
morals. In fact, I believe America was one of the last countries to outlaw
slavery.
>
>
>>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.
Well, you wrote the statement. But thank you for setting me straight.
>
>
>
>>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."
I think Platt was being a bit facetious.
>
>>>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 consider myself more a realist.
>
>
>>>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.
I like to study history. If we could jump in a time machine and go back a
hundred or a hundred and fifty years, I suspect what we'd see in the US
would be a whole lot like what we see in Mexico today. Do you honestly think
things have changed because the dialogue has changed?
>
>>
>>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"?
There are laws prohibiting murder too -- using your thinking, if I get
really steamed at someone then I should have the personal freedom to kill
them. Otherwise, it's an affront to my personal freedom.
Something seems skewed.
Let me ask you though: freedom from what? What do you mean by "personal
freedom"?
Thank you for your comments,
Dan
_________________________________________________________________
MSN Life Events gives you the tips and tools to handle the turning points in
your life. http://lifeevents.msn.com
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 - 18:09:49 BST