Well I never Ant,
I hadn't noticed your Mary Parker-Follett references before in your
text-book (must re-visit), I've mentioned her here and on the blog
many times and you've not responded. I'm a big fan.
Part of the problem we have, making progress in a subject like this,
is the polarization of language which would be difficult even if we
weren't dealing with the likes of Platt.
I've tended to use words like "governance" rather than "political
system" and ultimately governance is about accepting limits to
freedoms, what values those limits are based on, and what processes
are used to resolve conflict where freedoms bump up against each
other. (Platt simply feigns ignorance when I put the problem like that
... as if freedom was the last word on the matter.)
So whilst freedom is a no-brainer - the problem is both capitalism and
anarchy are forms of freedom. Free markets of values, just with
different values and market processes as their basis.
At one extreme, gav's view of freedom is so total it might be
characterised as anarchy - no limits whatsoever. At the other Platt
also see's almost total freedom but where the only limits are the
(monetary) market values of capital.
I think you are absolutely right to emphasise the MoQ hierarchy of
values, where monetary values are just examples social patterns only.
(And this is really where the debate you've started should continue
... accepting that policy decisions of governance - where to allow
patterns values to set limits on each other - is precisely what the
MoQ values are about ...)
I have to smile though when I see you object to being tagged as "on
the left" whilst quoting yor own chapter heading that refers to "the
solution to capitalism" characterizing capitalism as a "problem" :-)
Be interesting to see if Platt can see past that and respond to the
specific Pirsigian arguments you cite.
Ian
On 8/23/07, Ant McWatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ant McWatt stated August 22nd:
>
> >For genuine freedom for the majority of individuals in the world (rather
> >than a neo-con minority in the West) and a reduction in government
> >interference (one of your pet desires), I'd look towards some MOQ
> >orientated system of political anarchy with a small dose of Northrop and
> >environmentalism. (Note the absence of the word "Liberal").
>
> Platt then asked August 22nd:
>
> I've tried for 10 years on this site to get you and others on the left to
> spell out in detail the political system you would like to see that you
> think
> would reflect the MOQ. ("Political anarchy" sounds like Noam Chomsky). Will
> you
> now?
>
> Ant McWatt replies:
>
> Not too sure I like the description that I'm on the political left or the
> implication that there's much wrong with the ideas of Noam Chomsky but the
> following section from my MOQ Textbook should give you a good start in what
> an MOQ based political system would look like:
>
> 6.2.1. THE MOQ SOLUTION TO CAPITALISM
>
> The MOQ (as a holistic philosophy that recognises social structures as being
> composed of value patterns and, therefore, being as real as anything
> material) can be employed to challenge the alienating assumptions of
> capitalism. For instance, it considers money as a social value and, in
> consequence, recognises that it's secondary to more Dynamic intellectual
> values such as beauty, justice and freedom.
>
> In the MOQ making money is a social activity that should not dominate the
> higher intellectual goal of truth, or interfere with perception and pursuit
> of Dynamic Quality. (Pirsig, 2002d)
>
> Such MOQ principles are applied by Paradigm Research International which
> encourages companies to operate on co-operative lines and to be sensitive to
> their biological and social environments (locally and globally). Paradigm's
> C.E.O., Dr Robert Harris (1997, p.1) notes that such companies operate
> longer, provide a less alienating working environment, and remain more in
> harmony with the local and global environment. Moreover, he further
> suggests that they are as successful financially, if not more so, than
> companies retaining the traditional capitalist structure. However, there
> are relatively few 'MOQ based' companies and, not surprisingly, there are
> considerable difficulties in convincing shareholders and directors to share
> significant control and equity with their workers.
>
> 6.2.2. THE WORK OF MARY PARKER FOLLETT
> It's interesting to note that Harris is interested in the work of Peter F.
> Drucker (who promotes socially-conscious economic systems) who in turn, is
> an advocate of the work of Mary Parker Follett (1868-1933). In the 1920s,
> Follett was a well known American political scientist and management thinker
> who thought a proper sharing of power within business organisations was the
> key to social progress and commercial success:
>
> Genuine power can only be grown, it will slip from every arbitrary hand that
> grasps it; for genuine power is not coercive control, but coactive control.
> Coercive power is the curse of the universe; coactive power, the enrichment
> and advancement of every human soul. (Follett, 1924, p.xii-xiii)
>
> According to Drucker, Follett was a 'prophet of management' though her ideas
> were largely ignored in the States during the 1930s and 1940s because her
> conceptualisation of 'power with' rather than 'power over' others was
> contrary to the dominant capitalist ideology. However, her ideas never
> really went out of favour in Britain and after becoming especially popular
> in Japan during the 1960s, American interest in her work returned. Her
> ideas are similar to those advocated by Harris in that both think business
> organizations should be 'flat' networks rather than hierarchical structures.
>
> Follett was able to advocate the fostering of a 'self-governing principle'
> that would facilitate 'the growth of individuals and of the groups to which
> they belonged'. By directly interacting with one another to achieve their
> common goals, the members of a group 'fulfilled themselves through the
> process of the group's development'. (Smith, M. K., 2002)
>
> Like Pirsig, Follett's philosophy also draws from the work of William James,
> especially in its pragmatic sentiment. As far as I can ascertain, Pirsig
> and Follett also have the same notion of the individual and both place
> higher value on the creative rather than the rational aspects of experience.
> It would be fair to say that Follett is a precursor of many of the MOQ
> ideas applied by Harris to business.
>
> 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)
>
> 6.3. CONCLUSION
> It seems that, in essence, that the MOQ advocates a more balanced economic
> structure retaining the advantages of (intellectually orientated) socialism
> and capitalism's Dynamic free market.
>
> >From a static point of view socialism is more moral than capitalism. It's a
> higher form of evolution. It is an intellectually guided society, not just
> a society that is guided by mindless traditions. That's what gives
> socialism its drive…
>
> On the other hand… a free market is a Dynamic institution. What people buy
> and what people sell, in other words what people value, can never be
> contained by any intellectual formula. What makes the marketplace work is
> Dynamic Quality. The market is always changing and the direction of that
> change can never be predetermined.
>
> The free market… (prevents) static economic patterns from setting in and
> stagnating economic growth. That is the reason the major capitalist
> economies of the world have done so much better since World War II than the
> major socialist economies. (Pirsig, 1991, p.224-25)
>
> Pirsig's analysis is interesting because though capitalism has serious
> faults (such as Third World sweat shops and poor environmental records) its
> free market element is successful in an economic context. The critical
> issue then is the level of control that should be applied to a free market
> to obtain as much of its benefits without the degeneracy it causes (to
> higher values such as justice) when it's given too much freedom. The ideal
> is obtaining a balance between freedom and order and in which context they
> should be applied.
>
> ===============================
>
> I don't how much detail you want but I've also mentioned Northrop numerous
> times in the context of the international political arena and, more
> recently, Tom Hodgkinson ("How to be Free") who espouses an anarchist
> philosophy reminiscent of the MOQ at the local level.
>
> "All around us we see stressed out workers competing for the best parking
> space, snatching at every opportunity and consuming with a vigour that would
> put most drug addicts to shame - Hodgkinson, with a broad sword that takes
> in medieval merrymaking and our 21st century tax burden (higher now than in
> fuedal times according to the author) puts forward an almost unarguable
> point that we all need to slow down, consume less, laugh more and stop
> striving for the next big thing. As most people deep down know this to be
> true it took 'How to Be Free' for me to finally stop and, like being gently
> slapped in the face with the fish of happiness and quit rushing around like
> an idiot."
>
> "It's rare for books to actually stop you in your tracks ('The Corporation'
> - Bakan, 'Stupid White Men' - Moore, 'The Culture of Fear' - Glassner, 'How
> Mumbo Jumbo Conquered the World' - Wheen) but I was the road rage, drag the
> dog around the park, five meetings a day, make more money screaming bundle
> of stress that somehow defines modern man. How to Be Free points to an
> alternative way of life that drags the absurdity of this modern capitalist
> lifestyle out into the bright sunshine and stabs it repeatedly with
> observations, facts and comparisons. Buy this book or alternatively, on Tom
> Hodgkinsons advice, buy a ukulele .. or was it a banjo. Buy two, one for
> yourself and one for someone you know who screams at cyclists."
>
> J. D. Mulder
>
> (http://www.amazon.co.uk/How-Be-Free-Tom-Hodgkinson/dp/0241143217)
>
>
>
>
> .
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> The next generation of Hotmail is here! http://www.newhotmail.co.uk
>
>
> Moq_Discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
>
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
