[Ham] > From the start, this thread has been a forum for PROTESTING Capitalism. >> Am >> > I wrong, or has the theme not become "Protestant right-wingers be damned"? >
[John] Hey Ham, actually I remember this thread starting as an inquiry into the values behind Capitalism, not as condemnation, but inquiry. For so long, America used the term "godless communism" to make a certain point about "our" capitalist moral superiority. 'Twas my observation that Capitalism was based upon a certain moral system which has actually been undermined by the values-relativity of the last six decades. When the foundation of your society is undermined, your society crumbles. Thus the doom of capitalism. Since bringing the subject up, I have payed most attention to Platt's arguments for Capitalism as the most dynamic of systems and I have decided that while he is most certainly correct, there is a larger point he is missing which is that sometimes your biggest success breeds your biggest, catastrophic failure. Being a woodcutter, I offer the analogy of the forest. Let us postulate capitalism as a tree-growing enterprise. We'll offer it in competition to all other tree-growing enterprises on the planet and let us assume that it grows the most trees. Way more and way faster than socialism. Lots of trees. Close fitting, cramped in together and utterly "successful" forestry, that unfortunately produces the most fragile, fire-prone forest around. Quality isn't measured that way, or cancer would be a high-quality state of affairs. [Ham] > Actually, I see no reason to tie Capitalism to a religious denomination at > all. The fact that many "right-wing" capitalists happen to be Protestant > doesn't mean that there are no Catholic, Jewish, MOQist or non-theistic > capitalists. Milton Friedman (a Jew) was a follower of the Von Mises school > of economics, a capitalist-based ideology. Jonah Goldberg (Jewish) and Newt > Gingrich (Catholic) are arguably today's best spokesmen for conservative > capitalism. So why the Protestant twist? > [John] Historical reasons mainly. The founding fathers and all that. Protestantism was more then than it is now. Then it formed men and ideas in a way that's degraded since. One interesting way of looking at it is comparing the protestant new world as founded by english religious dissidents and the catholic new world founded by the spanish. South America had more of the advantages in resources and climate. Why such a disparity then in how the two societys ended up? [Ham] > Rather than dismiss the intellect of academia, I think we could all profit > by standing back from the hierarchy and taking a look at where it has gotten > us. > > What I see from the descriptions proffered is a set of mechanical > cogwheels, like the gears in a 4-speed transmission system, running from the > largest (Inorganic) to the smallest (Intellectual ), with Biological and > Social filling in the gap. Evolution starts by driving the largest wheel at > the slowest speed. After our vehicle has overcome inertia and is proceeding > at a constant rate, it shifts into second gear and begins to develop life > forms at a more rapid pace. Another shift engages the 3rd evolutionary > wheel and Man emerges on the scene. Finally, as we near the breakneck speed > of civilization, evolution shifts to 4th gear and Intellect drives mankind > to enlightnment, changing his perspective of the world ever after. > [John] I see your point. It's something that has bugged me a bit also, but from a different perspective. I see that analogy as too anthropocentric. But I don't think it's truly in the MoQ. I think it's a hang up we humans get that gets attached to the MoQ when we try and explain it. Hmmm... that sounds kind of nebulous, even to me. Let's just say that the MoQ itself, like any system, is vulnerable to static latching which degrades thought. [Ham] > To use another anology, all of the pins in a turnkey lock have to engage in > a specific order so we can open the door to reality. The point I'm crudely > trying to illustrate is that, according to Mr. Pirsig, this whole unfolding > of the universe is an automatic process whose consequences.are indifferent > to man, his thoughts, values and aspirations. No matter how poetic your > description of the MoQ hierachy, it's a mechanistic paradigm that runs its > predetermined course inexorably toward cosmic "betterness", with or without > man's participation. Notwithstanding Pirsig's emphasis on Value, am I the > only one who finds this scenario cold, unyielding, and inhuman? > > Thanks for hearing me out. > [John] I don't see what's wrong with betterness. I don't find it cold, unyielding or inhuman. I find it comforting beyond measure. If my life cannot attach to betterness, then it is worthless. If this betterness isn't outside myself, then it disappears when I die. That is cold. 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/
