Gentlemen, On the surface at least Northrop's book seems to be primarily about international politics. It was written during the cold war and spoke to the need for finding common cause among peoples of disparate colors and creeds. I defer to Andre and Ant on the specifics of Northrop's politics but it is clear that whatever they are Pirsig endorses Northrop wholeheartedly. In one of Ant's videos Pirsig says that he is Northrop's disciple. Talking about Northrop, particularly with regard to politics is hardly diverting attention away from Pirsig. In fact it sheds light on the kind of dialog Pirsig is having and the views he is commenting on.
Krimel ========================================================= Hey Ant, I think Pirsig's answer to Andre's question is adequate and needs no further elaboration. Pirsig is the best source for the MOQ. If you don't agree with him fine and dandy. Just don't try to hide the fact that he plainly says that free markets are superior to socialism by diverting attention to another author. Regards, Platt On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 7:41 PM, Ant McWatt <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 8 May 2009 at 18:11, Andre Broersen wrote: > > > Platt to Andre: > > You present a nice capsule summary of SOM philosophy supporting > > America's free market culture, currently being challenged by an influx > > of European socialist doctrine. Whether I hold to the static patterns > > you cite as the basis for American culture is now more or less mute > > because of the insights of the MOQ. As you know, it gives a new > > basis for supporting free markets. > > > > Andre: > > Hi Platt: Can you explain to me how Pirsig, or for that matter the MoQ > > supports the 'American free market culture' when it is grounded in: > > 1) the subjective egocentric religious doctrine of Protestantism and the > > individualistic political doctrine, grounded in Descartes, Malebranche, > and > > Locke's conception of a person as a mental substance, and > > 2) the laissez-faire economic theory formulated by Adam Smith and Jevons, > > which rests in turn on Locke, Hume and Bentham.? > > (I know some cosmetics have been applied to the above theories [e.g > Keynes] > > but they are still rock solid). > > > > I always thought that the MoQ rejected theism and subject/object > > analyses and that it rejected the existence of a value-free > > scientific/atomistic/amoral rationality upon which the philosophies of > point > > 2 in the above are grounded. > > > Platt then evaded the question May 8th: > > Pirsig presents his reasons for supporting free market capitalism in > Chapter > 17 of Lila. To answer your question I suggest you read what he wrote there. > > > Ant McWatt suggests: > > To give a proper response to Andre's excellent question, I suggest that you > first read F.S.C. Northrop's "The Meeting of East and West" (the book that > set Pirsig on the road to the MOQ) and try again. This is meant to be a > philosophy forum not a propaganda vessel for failed neo-conservative > economic policies (and God how they have failed in the last year)! > 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/
