> [Platt] > Maybe to you there are "actually greater freedoms" by purchasing a > community snowblower. But not to those in the neighborhood. > > [Arlo] > I disagree. In ZMM, Pirsig noted that the dialogue was keeping people from > seeing Quality, and he offered an expansion of the dialogue aimed at > getting people who "donât know where to start because no one has ever > told them thereâs such a thing as Quality in this world and itâs real". > Its the harbor effect, or the green flash of the sun, we see what our > language tells us to see... and our language has been invaded by > mercantilist and consumerist ideas, just as Pirsig notices it has been > invaded by S/O orientation.
Seems to me that whether a person has been invaded by "mercantilist and consumerist ideas" or not has little to do with the decision to own his own snowblower. For me anyway it would be a matter of convenience rather than ownership -- a convenience worth the extra money involved. It's easy to imagine the arguments about using a community snowblower. A heavy snowfall, for example, could tie up the blower all morning clearing out a single household's driveway while the rest of the neighborhood waits their turn. Who decides who gets to use the blower first? Who makes sure its in operating condition. Who stores in in the summer? What about liability? There are many questions to be negotiated in the arrangement you suggest. It's not worth the hassle to me, and I have no problem putting a price tag on freedom I'll enjoy by having my own machine. Actually I would probably contract for someone with a snowplow on his truck to remove the snow in my driveway. > [Platt] > The important thing, as you've indicated elsewhere, is to maintain each > individual's freedom to choose according to his own values and judgment. > > [Arlo] > Which is why the battle begins on a one-on-one basis, and any revolution > will occur only when the veils imposed by mercantilist language have been > lifted. On the question of language, you seem to adhere to idea that it's possible to reform thought and behavior by reforming language. No doubt there's some truth to that, but even Pirsig admitted that the subject-object language of science had its place. Likewise I believe that property- ownership-free market language has it's place in preserving individual freedom. Anyway, if we need a new language its the language of static- Dynamic Quality rather than the Marxian language of oppressor-oppressed which I suspect is at the root of your dislike of prevailing beliefs. > [Platt] > We need not review the communal behaviors of the hippies that followed the > wrong track. > > [Arlo] > According to Pirsig, the only mistake the Hippies made was in mistaking > biologic for Dynamic Quality. The rest of their behavior he called "moral", > and I take this to include the communal, social-participatory engagement. You may be right. Other than his approval of the free market, Pirsig is apparently sympathetic to socialist ideals. How he sees those as compatible is a mystery to me. . > [Platt] > Nor do I see any appeal to living the life of the Amish. But, I see > nothing wrong with anyone promoting "social orientations" so long as > individual freedom of choice is preserved. > > [Arlo] > Okay. > > [Platt] > I don't consider individualism to be immoral. Nor do I know of any > propaganda that condemns us for been greedy and selfish except from some > Christian fundamentalist preachers and liberal politicians. > > [Arlo] > No, the propaganda is worse, it tells us that being greedy and selfish are > normal and desirably, even lofty, orientations to hold. I think being > self-full can be a good thing, everyone should strive for individual > enlightenment. Like all things, however, when carried to the extremes > promoted in the modern dialogue, we end up commodifying people, destroying > others to get ahead, or turning a blind eye to the suffering not only of > anonymous "others", but to our own neighbors. "Community" used to mean > something. I look at the U.S. and see an entirely different picture, a picture of neighbor helping neighbor in times of distress and a generosity of donations to charitable causes beyond compare. But, I could be wrong. Anyway, I think it's human nature to care most about oneself, family and friends. The genius of the capitalist system is that it takes this natural self-interest and uses it to create a system that produces an unsurpassed standard of living for the vast majority. > [Platt] > It's a question of where you draw the line. I opt for privacy, ownership > and individual freedom. Your argument can be used to deprive anyone of > owning any real estate on the grounds it deprives others freedom to use > it. > > [Arlo] > So its a matter of depriving one person the right to exclude all others, or > depriving everyone of the ability to use something? Don't understand the question. Should everyone have the right to use my kitchen? > Like I said, this is the game we all agree to. We know that letting one > person own that lake deprives all our freedoms, but we let it happen > because, we believe, that our own freedom will one day come under the guise > of us being the ones who can exclude others from our "property". > > And, yes, it is a matter of where to draw the line. This is why the balance > of private to public property is so important. Each time we "sell" of > something to one person, we restrict the freedoms of everyone else. And so > we should conserve, protect and be vigilant that our public space is > adequately improved as well. > > Consider your shoreline. Should it be sold off to private millionaires > seeking luxury getaways? What would happen if the miles and miles of public > beaches in the Carolinas suddenly were replaced with "No Trespassing" signs > and fences? It would make a few people really happy, I'm sure, to have such > wonderful property all to themselves. But what about the rest of us? I haven't made a study of it but it's my impression that most of the shoreline in the Carolinas is privately owned by individuals or hotels. There are several state parks on the ocean but they charge admission. On Hilton Head Island where I'm most familiar with the shoreline, most of it is privately held with a couple of places allowing access to the general public who unfortunately tend to treat the beach as their personal garbage dump. When you own something you tend to take better care of it than if you don't have a stake in it. Littering and vandalism is a problem in all public spaces. > [Platt] > I dont consider consumption and ownership to be a malignancy. Rather I see > them as aspects of individual freedom. > > [Arlo] > I only consider them a malignancy when they become the end in and of > itself. As for whether or not they are integral parts of "freedom", I doubt > this too, although that's what the modern conception of freedom really is, > buying and owning. Well in most cases you can't own without buying, and IMO, owning is prerequisite for personal and political freedom. Perhaps you define "freedom" differently. > [Platt] > As for Marx, Jesus and the Buddha -- are they the authorities you look to > for moral guidance? > > [Arlo] > Among others. I wonder if you find it strange as I do that in all of Pirsig's writing we find very little reference to social morality as preached by the above historical figures? 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/
