Platt to Andre: Do you comprehend the history of the MOQ and why Pirsig favors free markets over SOM socialism?
Andre: I wil not pretend I do comprehend the total history of the MoQ, that is why I continue to read relevant materials and joined this Discuss in order to deepen my understanding. Pirsig admitted himself that Lila is, at times vague and seemingly contradictory, reasoning that the MoQ is too big to be 'contained' within a few hundred pages of a book. You seem to be reducing the MoQ to be an argument in favour of 'free' markets as against socialism. Where on earth you get that from I do not know. I thought that Pirsig was arguing against SOM and its ideologically conceived concept of the good (both capitalist and socialist...plus all the variations in between). You continue to ignore my questions or adquately address them by selectively (ab)using quotes from Lila to reinforce your own ideological base...a base which Pirsig has exposed to being flawed, misconceived and wrong on some very fundamental accounts. Your question juxtaposing 'free markets' and 'SOM socialism' is therefore silly. Andre: Those doctrines are what set Pirsig on the road to writing ZMM and Lila. He recognised the defect in them. Platt: Right. In the MOQ he overcomes the defect in SOM. Andre: The MoQ exposes the defect and suggests ways of overcoming them. Problem is that you are putting them right back again with your ideological propaganda which hovers between an adherence to and reinforcement of existing biological and social patterns of value. You are usurping the MoQ to justify these levels. In the MoQ freedom means a moving away from static patterns. You want to reinforce these static patterns. This has the effect of binding people and keeping them un-free. And look at what a disastrous effect this neo-conservative political/economic ideological policy has had on the US and the rest of the world. What you are proselytising is immoral. Platt: Right, and you don't need to read Northrop to know that after reading Lila. Andre: You sound like a religious fundamentalist...don't question the Bible! Platt: And if you are a SOM leftist you pretend to care about all the "victims" of the mean, selfish capitalists so you can pose as their savior and vote for laws that make them dependent on government in order to gain power for yourself. Andre: This reminds me of Paul's (the apostle I mean) bullshit by suggesting that, if you are not for us you must be against us. What a narrow-minded pretentious load of crap. Platt: Do you ever question the morality of socialism? Why is it moral to seek power over others who mind their own business and never initiate physical force on anyone? Andre: For your information I do question the morality of socialism as a path towards the good in the same way as I question the Western religious, philosophic, democratic, political/economic path to the good. As to the second part of your question I will quote Pirsig: 'What the Metaphysics of Quality indicates is that the twentieth-century intellectual faith in man's basic goodness as spontaneous and natural is disastrously naive. The ideal of a harmonious society in which everyone without coercion cooperates happily with everyone else for the mutual good of all is a devastating fiction' (Lila, p314). I don't need to tell you that Pirsig has the Anglo-American societies in mind which he termed a 'rust-belt' (despite, or is it because of, Dynamic Quality, which 'people' cannot responsibly 'channel') . He placed the socialist variant on a higher moral plane. Anyway, this observation concerns all societies not just socialist.( So don't give me your McCarthyism! Where have you been the last fifty years?). Platt: When I review the history of the 20th century I find the various forms of socialism as practiced to be of far lower quality than capitalism. I was under the impression you came to the same conclusion with your experience in China. Perhaps I was mistaken. Andre: No, you are not mistaken Platt but it is not as black and white as you tend to represent things. Both have virtues and both have flaws but one needs to go back much earlier to get a clearer understanding of the evolution of ideological positions,their (scientific) basis, where they split and why. This helps to clarify their resultant conflicts which led to the disaster and atrocities committed during the 20th Century. Lila is a wonderful summery, in this sense, but not the whole thing. The whole thing, as Pirsig stated is too big. Regards Andre ' 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/
