Platt: Your telling me that everything Pirsig said about capitalism being better than socialism was just a bunch of malarky because everybody knows capitalism sucks.
I don't buy it. Pirsig says what he means and means what he says. To suggest otherwise is to throw his entire philosophy into the garbage bin. Platt: What is good is evolution towards greater freedom and versatility, accomplished by being open to the force of Dynamic Quality. Ron: Hello Platt, I think what is being said is that there is high quality in both ideas and to use the best of both to form a better system. By dogmatically clinging to a purist perspective in regard to capitalism and current free market values, you do not make a strong case for being open to dynamic quality. What plagues the free market is what plagued the hippie movement, they make the mistake of casting off social ethics and morals in the name of intellectual quality and any intellectual pattern that undermines social quality for biological reasons such as greed is of low quality intellectual patterns. ________________________________ From: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Saturday, May 16, 2009 1:06:36 PM Subject: Re: [MD] Northrop and the failure of neo-conservative free Hey Andre, On 15 May 2009 at 22:41, Andre Broersen wrote: > Platt to Andre: > As far as I know all ideas held by me, you and everybody else, whether > anarchists, republicans or totalitarians, are SOM-based. Some good, > some bad. My original point was that Pirsig suggests an entirely new, > non-SOM reason for favoring free markets -- that they are more open to > responding to DQ. The fact that others supported free markets using > SOM reasoning is totally irrelevant. > > Andre: > I am not at all convinced that Pirsig is favouring free markets. Just > because the MoQ provided the conservatives with the vocabulary to describe a > free market as a 'Dynamic institution' doesn't make it any more virtuous > (than anything else). > The fact that it is dynamic and therefore virtuous does not hold for Pirsig > (as far as my reading of the MoQ goes). The virtue that the conservatives > see is just that this Dynamic Quality supports their own self > interest.(Lila, p 225). > In other words, you are using Dynamic Quality as an excuse, a justification > and cover-up to keep on exploiting, denigrading and demonizing the poor, > the misguided, the unfortunates,the bloody hard working ordinary people as > wel as the victims of this self same free market institution. And, of course > you are not the only one. The entire American Dream is built around it and > millions are sucked into it...blaming themselves for not making it. ( Albert > Hammond's 'It Never Rains In California' springs to mind). Very, very sad > indeed. > > I have suggested to you a few times now that the theories (derived from > scientific discoveries) that underpin the (amongst other things) economic > foundations and practices of the Western world are hopelessly inadequate, > misconstrued, flawed and contradictory and, may I add, highly destructive.( > this has proven itself on several occasions and you do not need to be a > lefty/commie observer to see this). > > You can tell me anything you like but Mr. Pirsig is not so stupid to accept > this nor your conservative justifications. You're telling me that Pirsig didn't really mean it when he said, "A free market is a Dynamic institution." You're telling me Pirsig lied when he said, "The free market makes everybody richer." You're telling me Pirsig was off in Never-Never Land when he said, "Major capitalist countries have done so much better since World War II than the major socialists countries." . You're telling me Pirsig had too many boilermakers when he said, "You go to any socialist city and it's always a dull place because there's little Dynamic Quality." Your telling me Pirsig was stupid when he said, "What makes the market work is Dynamic Quality. The market is always changing and the direction of that change can never be predetermined." Your telling me that everything Pirsig said about capitalism being better than socialism was just a bunch of malarky because everybody knows capitalism sucks. I don't buy it. Pirsig says what he means and means what he says. To suggest otherwise is to throw his entire philosophy into the garbage bin. > Platt: > Anyway, can we agree, Andre, that not all SOM thinking is low quality? > > Andre: > Absolutely. It takes wisdom to separate high quality from low quality and > act accordingly. > To quote Pirsig once again (seeing you appreciate this so much): > > '...trying to do what is right (and I gather that that is what you are doing > [it is very populistic and therefore has a massive following] is following > SQ'. > > '...trying to do what is GOOD, is following DQ'. Now that takes alot of > intestinal fortitude. Where is that quote from? I couldn't find it in Lila. > I am assuming you know the difference between doing what is 'right' and > doing what is 'good'....? (of course you do...you've read Lila). What is good is evolution towards greater freedom and versatility, accomplished by being open to the force of Dynamic Quality. 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/ 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/
