John and WillBlake [Platt mentioned] --
[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.
I can see you are itching to discuss politics, John. So is WillBlake, who
joined the MD a few months before you came on board.
[WillBlake]:
I agree that the current phase in Western thought is either
that matter and mind are the same thing, or that mind does not
exist. I know differently.
I know that you don't talk politics, but the current political phase
believes that even if self exists, it needs a lot of direction in doing
so. Baa, Baa.
Both of you write well, have an open mind toward the MoQ, and seem to favor
laissez-faire Capitalism (a rare combination of virtues in this forum.)
What are the chances of getting you and WillBlake together in a discussion
of Conservative Values? Since Platt and I are regarded as right-wing
"extremists", the four of us could take on the leftist-liberal majority in a
productive debate. Until that happens I have little incentive to jeopardize
my already tenuous philosophical position here by arguing politics with the
antagonists.
For now, though, back to the MoQ's morality...
[Ham, previously]:
Notwithstanding Pirsig's emphasis on Value, am I the only
one who finds this scenario cold, unyielding, and inhuman?
[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.
Nothing is wrong with betterness, except that it represents something
different for each of us. Pirsig talks about betterness as if it's a
universal property that everybody agrees on. But when applied to morality,
which is the author's usual reference, this just isn't true. For example,
to the liberal socialist "betterness" means having a bigger, more caring
government. For the conservative it means having more freedom with less
government intervention. To the Jihadist it means destroying the infidels
and establishing an Islamic world order.
There's no "inside" or "outside" to betterness because it's a Value. Values
are proprietary to the individual and are reflected in the social morality
of like-minded people. This is the trap Pirsig fell into by using a banket
term like "better" to connote universal goodness. One man's "goodness" may
be his neighbor's "evil". A Bruckner symphony may be sheer beauty for a
lover of the classics but tediously boring to a jazz musician. Just as all
individuals are different, so is their sense of value. That's the
relational nature of the world we live in.
As I explained in a post to Marsha yesterday, "Difference is necessary for
the realization of value -- not only difference in terms of what is
perceived, but difference in the 'agency' of perception." No two worldviews
are valuistically identical. We come into existence as differentiated
beings so that we may realize value in an infinite range of perspectives.
Regrettably, this point is missed in the MoQ because, although the author
makes a formidable case for Value in our lives, he has defined it as a
universal principle instead of as subjective sensibility.
Sorry for this long-winded comment, but it's a critical concept in my
philosophy of Essence.
Best regards,
Ham
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]
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/
