From: Arlo J. Bensinger (ajb102@psu.edu)
Date: Wed Jul 14 2004 - 01:58:15 BST
Hi Dan (and All)...
>
> 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.
>
Agreed. Getting drunk is biological. Money is social. My point.
Before continuing, please consider this from ZMM:
Pirsig: But now that for huge masses of people these needs no longer overwhelm
everything else, the whole structure of reason [intellectual level], handed
down to us from ancient times, is no longer adequate. It begins to be seen for
what it really is- emotionally hollow, esthetically meaningless and spiritually
empty. That, today, is where it is at, and will continue to be at for a long
time to come.
Pirsig: He had built empires of scientific capability to manipulate the
phenomenon of nature into enormous manifestations of his own dreams of power and
wealth- but for this he had exchanged an empire of understanding of equal
magnitude: an understanding of what it is to be a part of the world, and not an
enemy of it.
Pirsig: Quality, Virtue, Dharma! That is what the Sophists were teaching! Not
ethical relativism. Not pristine 'virtue'. But arete. Excellence.
Explain to me how anyone can insist "Quality is money", after reading ZMM?
Back to this... Money is social. And you should be allowed to pursue it so long
as you don't violate Intellectual morality (freedom of the press, and so forth,
as Platt has mentioned). Intellectual morality, as Pirsig lays out in ZMM, must
be driven not just by "what is reasonable", but also by "what is good". Thus, I
contend, paying fair living wages is "good" Intellectually and thus overrides
the social level value of wealth accumulation. We've said so much in this
country and others by setting a minimum wage.
Protection from monopolies is an Intellectual moral, as it prevents exploitation
of the playing field. Therefore it supercedes the "freedom" of the individual
from maximizing their wealth through monopoly.
I mentioned Denmark in other posts, and cited the example of open higher
education. Consider instead the highway system in this country. I lose tax
dollars to pay for this, but overall my freedoms and your freedoms are
increased significantly in that we can travel freely and quickly, take those
vacations and experience many things. In a pure "money" model, we'd return tax
dollars to the citizens and make all the highways "paid use", like turnpike
system except that even going up and down your street will cost you say 40
cents per trip. Here, we are Intellectually governed to see the greater good
that an interstate highway system brings in terms of freedom, and so it
overrides the social level value of any one individual to accumulate wealth.
Can you have an Intellectually governed society that does not close the door to
DQ in the marketplace? Platt contends no. I contend yes. Platt feels that
Kobenhavn is "dull" (compared to NYC) and agrees with Pirsig's statement (I'm
guessing) that her economy is "all but killed".
Platt argues that Denmark has less freedom because he would be able to keep less
of his wealth. This equates wealth with freedom and then with Dynamic Quality.
Thus, the way to pursue DQ is to pursue wealth.
> 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?
>
I'm only thinking through this now, and there have been some discussions in the
MOQ list a few years ago (that degenerated into "capitalism" versus
"socialism"), but I'll give you my answer of the moment. Anthony has a much more
thought-through consideration of this, as likely does Mark H. But, here goes...
I don't think Marx would have been like John or Phaedrus. John rejects things,
but is not sure why it came to be this way. He is running, but he doesn't know
"from what". Although Phaedrus' concerns were directly targetted at
post-Fordist production, Phaedrus saw the overlying problem in the SO duality
of our culture. Marx saw the problem in the industrial production process
itself. A fundamental difference is that Marx wanted a restructuring of
production to reunite labor activity and process, Pirsig felt that such a
reunification could be achieved solely by the individual changing his/her
mindset (rejecting SO duality).
My thinking (it's not fleshed out) is that the industrial production labor
process itself was the result of a SO duality built into it from the beginning.
Post-Fordist production almost deliberately built "caring" and "artistry" and
"craftsmanship" out of the picture. It demanded blind conformity in production.
And thus demonstrates, I think, a very clear SO duality structure.
So, to get back to Pirsig, I'd say that the worker's rejecting SO duality would
lead to some improvement, but the employer/capitalist would need to reject SO
duality as well, and thus the improvement would be maximized. The employer
needs to recognize that his/her employees "need to care", "need to be able to
respond to Quality in their actions", and so would structure production in such
a way as to maximize this. Just like Harley-Davidson :-) Well, not that that's
the end-all example, but it comes to mind.
And here is a good point to get back to this dialogue. If Coke's executives, in
rejecting SO duality, recognized the need for its labor to "care", to be able
to respond to Quality, do you think they'd treat them as they do? Certainly the
labor needs to be open to Quality, and to be responsive, but in positions where
this is not only not valued, but actively repressed, I don't think it can
happen.
> 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.
Well, I disagree that it was "from within". The north and the south had very
distinct product economies, and most in the south were quite willing to keep
slavery. Not everyone, but most. I can see your point, but would argue that
"slavery" collapsed not because it was no longer economically profitable, but
because of "Intellectual" pressures from without.
> 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.
>
Take all of Platt's money and distribute it to the poor! JUST KIDDING!!!... :-)
No, I don't think we should "prop up their economy", but I think paying fair
wages for their labor, wages that would actually help them overcome poverty
rather than perpetuate it, is a good step. Another would be to stop using their
country as a dumping ground for American waste. Another would be to ensure
Mexican products were able to compete fairly in the world market (have the same
bargaining strength as other products). Just some ideas.
Actually, I think that poverty will only be dealt with when we consider the poor
as fellow human beings and not just shrug them off as "someone else other than
me". If you had a poor family living next door to you, what would you do?
Ignore them. Help them. Why? Does the MOQ have nothing to say to this? Would it
be moral for you to increase your wealth and ignore them? Would it make a
difference to you if they lived in Tijuana?
> I don't think slavery being unjust is only a set of American intellectual
> morals.
>
Agreed.
> >>I think there is a problem with your statement "the market's highest
> >>Quality is measured in profit." You're subordnating Quality to profit.
> >Oooo... crossed path. I would never subordinate Quality to profit!!!
>
> Well, you wrote the statement. But thank you for setting me straight.
>
Sarcastically wrote. But, you're welcome.
> >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.
>
I certainly hope so.
> >>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?
>
No. I think things have stayed the same because the dialogue has not changed.
The reason Coke is in Mexico is to avoid the gains made by labor unions and
regulations (such as waste disposal) that exist in America. I do think the
dialogue changes somewhat in America now and then (Pirsig talks how the
"hippies" had wanted to change the dialogue, but offered no real alternative).
It changed when we created the labor unions, sure, but it's changed back to
make them a socialist threat (in 2002, Rush refered to the unions as the
"retard vote", do you think you could find a conservative pundit who speaks
highly of labor unionization?) ZMM was a call to change the dialogue, in my
opinion, from a SO worldview to one that recognized Quality. Sadly, I think
that the things Pirsig lamented in ZMM are mostly still the way it is today.
Look around you at all the "cheap, stylized junk" being pumped out by the
factories. Look at the labor alienation.
> >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.
>
Ooooo... crossed path again. Those questions were meant to be very sarcastic.
Sorry for not making that clear. My argument was that you (or anyone else) can
not cry "personal freedom" because there are laws regulating activity.
> Let me ask you though: freedom from what? What do you mean by "personal
> freedom"?
Since Anthony mentioned "Flow" in another post, I think I'll use it here. I was
not going to mention it because it and its relation to the MOQ may be a whole
other interesting area of talk. But... in my humble opinion...
Personal freedom is my ability to participate in Flow activities of my choosing
for the greatest amount of time, all the while not prohibiting or making it
otherwise restrictive on others from participating in Flow activities of their
choosing.
Or, in the quick Wiccan mantra: And it harm none, do what ye will.
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 : Wed Jul 14 2004 - 02:07:57 BST