> > Ok Andre, > > The housepainter responds. I appreciate your dialogue and caring, I want > to more closely examine a few issues with you, if you don't mind. > > We'll start with the lightweight and get to the meat later on. Deal first > with the special sauce, lettuce, cheese and then move on to the all beef > patties and the sesame seed bun. > > Andre: >> Hi Platt, no, McDonalds has never done anything to me. I have been >> there once and have avoided it eversince. >> > >
John: Well you and Lu are on the same page there. She hates macdonalds with a > deep passion and feels it to be entirely an insult to intelligence. I'm > fascinated mainly by its highly evoloved marketing techniques - for > instance, since I don't watch tv, I listen to a lot of talk radio while I'm > working or driving and I hear a lot of commercials. McD's really stand out > in my mind - they pioneered this dualistic thing with two completely > different commercials - very short - following one another, which seemed to > me to be a way of reinforcing message through repetition that was highly > effective and predicated upon a sophisticated knowledge of social > programming technique. > > And the Golden Arches? Man, have you ever seen a more blatant projection > of desire? Two boobs beckoning. Genius. > Andre: > Look Platt, I do not have all the answers, I am certainly not > anti-free market. The only thing I am trying to suggest is that DQ, as > it has found itself expressed in the free market, as DQ has found > itself expressed at the organic level as sex, as it found itself at > the social level (similar to the free market) as celebrity, does that > mean that we have to have sex as celebrities in the free market all > the time? Is this the ultimate Q morality? > > I am sure that there is a point at which our interpretations of the > MoQ will diverge but as Pirsig states very clearly, a dynamic Quality > without latching is degenerative. You cannot live on DQ alone. > > John: Well I'm not sure, Andre. I think you are wrong. I think you can live on DQ alone, although it's a very high standard to reach for - to kill all your intellectual patterns, all the time. It's an ideal. You seem to express it as chaos - something to be dreaded. I think we have a difference in our understanding of DQ. In fact, I know we do. You have expressed before this idea, and you repeat it below: Andre: DQ is without morals (or rather, it is a-moral). It is not this not that. This moral battle is being fought out at, and between the SQ patterned levels. John: See, the idea that DQ is amoral is equivalent to saying Quality isn't any good. It obviates the Good. In the eternal question I ask every one, is Quality an axis or a direction? you are on the side that it is an axis. You've taken up the dmb standard then. What you say is that there is no intrinsic direction toward betterness as the metaphysical foundation of the cosmos. And that idea is as ridiculous to me as a roller coaster ride without gravity and completely antithetical to the heart of the MoQ. Let's investigate further the pragmatic differences between us. Andre: And this is where we diverge (I think). The DQ of the free market does > just that. It produces for the sake of producing. It invents for the > sake of inventing. It gives information for the sake of giving > information. It distributes for the sake of distributing. It feeds for > the sake of feeding. It kills for the sake of killing. This is where > the Giant comes in.It is a self-perpetuating monster not caring for a > few bodies more or less, not caring for a few brilliant ideas more or > less. It looks, takes, swallows, burps and farts, and shits, and that > is the end of it. All neatly MaC packaged and laundered on the market > place. Next please!!! > > John: Well the main difference I see between your and my view of DQ, is in my view the spirit of DQ is open to change or willingness of current patterns to cease, whereas that spirit of SQ wants only to perpetuate itself and keep its patterns going forever and ever without end, amen. SQ values equal self-oriented values. DQ - oriented values are good- oriented values. What you call DQ, I call SQ. Andre: I think that this is what Pirsig means when he says that it 'can never > be contained by any intellectual formula' (LILA, p 225) and our > economists and politicians are responding AFTER the events. > John: Right. DQ can't be captured intellectually, but sq certainly can. So the examples you give of market economics etc. and the laws of self-perpetuation they obey pertain to sq, not DQ. Andre: What I am trying to get at with you is that this pattern has been > allowed to set off on a path of its own...without any moral > considerations. DQ is without morals (or rather, it is a-moral). It is > not this not that. This moral battle is being fought out at, and > between the SQ patterned levels. > John: But sq patterend levels ARE patterns of morality and in and of themselves have no moral referee to appeal to. Might makes right is not a morality pattern. Andre: > > Now, before I get carried away I simply posit for you that this free > market energy is channeled to the few and wasted on the majority and > that we, as SQ have a moral obligation to balance that. An MoQ > attitude will show the goodness, the betterness of freedom and > compassion. > > There are over one billion people starving on this planet! > John: I think you got carried away. People are starving because macdonalds isn't giving out enough free hamburgers? How do you connect the dots in your indictment? Impressive as your moral outrage is, I'd like to see some logical reasoning apart from labeling and defaming. If the majority desires the status quo to continue, then it will. Being rich doesn't have any meaning unless there are a bunch of poor people with which to compare yourself. Andre: > All our fucking intelligence is being used and abused by MaC economic > and MaC political PoV's and this is a classic example of a lower > evolutionary level dominating and subjugating (for its own gains) a > higher level of evolution. > John: Point out to me the higher levels of evolution, if you please. If the majority give their minds over to mass hypnosis, I don't see much "higher" in their evolution. 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/
