On 3 Dec 2009 at 17:56, Andre Broersen wrote: > Platt to Andre: > Evidence please. And while you're at, what quotes have I given "out of > context?." > > Andre: > I'll mention only a few Platt because they center around the same > issues all the time. > I asked you about keeping things 'in the spirit of the MoQ' to which > you respond: it's freedom'. > Within the MoQ context 'Freedom' doesn't mean anything'. Within the > MoQ it means Dynamic Quality. 'That's what neither the socialists nor > the capitalists ever got figured out'. (LILA, p224).
Within the MOQ context, freedom means DQ and vice versa. > 'A free-market is a dynamic institution...what makes the market place > work is Dynamic Quality' which 'can never be contained by any > intellectual formula'. My slant on this Platt, is that uncontrolled, > uncontaind DQ leads to degeneration. It needs to be latched somewhere, > somehow. (I think this climate discussion has some role in this as > well). The MOQ context says nothing about "uncontrolled, uncontained" DQ. That's only in your imagination. > 'From a static point of view socialism is more moral than capitalism. > It's a higher form of evolution. It's an intellectually guided > society, not just a society guided by mindless traditions. That's what > gives socialism its drive' (LILA, ibid). > > Again, my interpretation of this Platt, is that these 'mindless > traditions' (including the sanctifying role of the Church) is the > 'usual cover-up for the rich in their age-old exploitation of the > poor' Pirsig refers to, maintained by conservatives, fed by their own > self-interest, who 'keep trumpeting about the virtues of free > enterprise'.(LILA, p225). In the MOQ context, Pirsig goes on to explain why the free market is more moral than socialism. Yours is an example of quotes taken out of context in order to knock conservatives. > Perhaps the MoQ can be used as a means of reconciling these two > approaches but you seem to be shutting any dialogue out, dismissing > any challenge to your point of view/ representing your interest, as > commie/ lefty/ conspiratorial etc, etc. If the MOQ could be used to "reconcile" capitalism with socialism it would have done so instead of explaining why capitalism is morally superior to socialism. The MOQ is about "betterness," not compromises with evil. > As I mentioned to Marsha, any desparate clinging to static gains made > (to the exclusion of DQ) will lead to degeneracy, any clinging to DQ > without any latching leads to degeneracy. The balance is to be found > in DQ/SQ. Agree. > Which brings me back to my point above: you appear to shut out DQ > advances/approaches to conservative static patterns. No, conservatives favor social, economic and political freedom which is DQ's catalyst. Your leftist view by contrast favors the static patterns of a collectivist society, a planned economy, and an all powerful God state. As Pirsig says, leftists shut the door on DQ. "What makes the free- enterprise system superior is that the socialists, reasoning intelligently and objectively, have inadvertently closed the door to Dynamic Quality in the buying and selling of things. They closed it because the metaphysical structure of their objectivity never told them Dynamic Quality exists." > Anyway, probably water off a duck's back. But better than ducking questions. Thanks for your response. 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/
