Hi Bo, > On 23 February. you cited from the "Communist Manifesto" (I guess it > is) > > > "Of course, in the beginning, this cannot be effected except by means of > > despotic inroads on the rights of property, and on the conditions of > > bourgeois production; by means of measures, therefore, which appear > > economically insufficient and untenable, but which, in the course of the > > movement, outstrip themselves, necessitate further inroads upon the old > > social order, and are unavoidable as a means of entirely revolutionizing > > the mode of production. > > You obviously know much more about communism than I do and my > errand is not to defend it, just analyze it in the light of the MOQ and I > think the assertion that communism was an intellectually construction that > fanatically followed its own narrow rationality holds water. Also that this > narrowness was the cause for it notoriously ending up in the worst > despotisms that history knows. > > This in turn is another result of "intellect as SOM" factor. By not > knowing its place in a Quality hierarchy intellect suffered from the > illusion of it being possible to construct a totally rational society > (totalitarianism) with the known results. With the coming of MOQ and > its taking over the metaphysical "M" (and leaving the residue S/O the > role of its intellectual level) the moq-initiated see reality differently. > > And the Q-reality will not permit an "intellectual dictatorship". The the > level context demands a society that leaves room for free enterprises, yet > holds the values of human rights and freedom high, thus preventing the "free > entrepreneurs" to become so powerful as to create "social dictatorship". > These subtle points are clear to me, but if they are to you ...??
A brilliant analysis! I would say you know more about communism than I ever will for you have targeted precisely the cause of its failure. You've also accurately portrayed the danger of monopolies, whether created by the free market or by government edict. The question regarding monopolies, whether private or public, is at what point do they become too powerful? Or, to put it another way, what is the proper mix of order and freedom to keep the door open for responses to DQ? In arriving at an answer, I think it would be the MOQ view to make freedom the default position. > Platt: > > Very interesting -- nostalgia of a higher level for the lower, a > > "paradise lost element" at each level (except inorganic I presume). > > There's no doubt that Wilson and his intellectual cohorts played upon an > > innate desire for "social participation" and national social unity. But, > > small-town USA was consisted mostly of highly individualistic and > > independent entrepreneurs with the bare minimum of laws necessary enforce > > contracts and punish criminals. That changed, of course, when the > > intellectuals took over the national government. But, I certainly agree > > that nostalgia for the social pattern of "Can't we all get along?" is > > alive and well at the intellectual level. > > > Thanks for another fresh insight. I always look to you for high value > > interpretations of the MOQ. > > Thank YOU Platt, but the source of many difficulties is the "social" > term, when you say "social participation" is not social value but > socialism, while the freedom of good old days might as well be social > VALUE like belov. Sorry Bo, you lost me. I think of "socialism" as a social value because many of its intellectual tenets are considered conventional wisdom in the West. Similarly, the value of entrepreneurship is conventional wisdom in the U.S. When beliefs are widely held, do they not become social patterns and social values? > On the nostalgia issue: If what's described as the coming of SOM in > ZAMM is the coming of the intellectual level in the MOQ, then the > Aretê that P. says is displayed by the old Homeric heroes must be > social value. Thus we must conclude that young Pirsig, totally > immersed in intellect's SOM reality, saw the past's non-SOM Aretê > reality as a "paradise lost" and something he identified with Quality > itself. Interesting. I will have to ponder your tracing of Pirsig's development. It never occurred to me that Arete was a social value. If it was "conventional wisdom" in Homer's time, maybe so. Regards, Platt 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/
