[207.8.58.25])
by mill.venus.co.uk (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id TAA07164
for <lilasquad@moq.org>; Mon, 5 Apr 1999 19:56:54 +0100 (BST)
Received: from jason-mckague.sunsetdirect.com ([207.8.109.42])
by mailhost.sunsetdirect.com (Netscape Messaging Server 3.62)
with SMTP id 273 for <lilasquad@moq.org>;
Mon, 5 Apr 1999 13:52:11 -0500
Message-ID: <00d901be7f96$6ebaa420$5716000a@jason-
mckague.sunsetdirect.com>
From: "Jason McKague" <jmckague@sunsetdirect.com>
To: <lilasquad@moq.org>
Subject: Re: LS Power and the MOQ
Date: Mon, 5 Apr 1999 13:59:28 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="Windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3155.0
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3155.0
Sender: owner-lilasquad@venus.co.uk
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: lilasquad@moq.org
I've just joined this group and am excited to participate in the
discussions. As of yet, I'm a bit unfamiliar with the way everything
works - i.e. where this month's discussion topic is listed - so bear with
me.
I just want to briefly respond to some of the recent postings.
Regarding the question of the 'superiority' or betterness between
cooperation and competition, I think the terms are being used too
conservatively. Many, if not most, forms of competition are cooperative
efforts at some level. In the case of chess, or any oranized game,
cooperative priciples are employed in order to fulfill the competitive
aspect of the game (i.e. rules, mutual interest in the other "doing their
best", etc.). In order to sustain a competitive situation, cooperative
principles must be observed.
It seems that the polarity of competition and cooperation is much like
that
of static and dynamic. A better way to illustrate this is to look at the
model presented by a "free market". Where static (or cooperative
principles) maintain the market (product improvement without fear of
regression, free market laws or rules) dynamic or competitive principles
drive the market in a manner that (in theory) makes everyone happy.
Static
supports are necessary to promote dynamic growth. Pirsig directly
states
that both elements (of quality), static and dynamic, are necessary for the
good, moral life. In this respect there is a symbiotic relationship
between
the two. The same is true for 'competition' and 'cooperation' (as
illustrated, though minimally, with the example posed by a free market).
Pirsig might say that the terms are two integral concepts within a larger
structure, or quality.
With regards to "power", isn't an implication made throughout both
books
that "power" is something that everyone has? I think "gumption", as he
uses
it in ZAMM, is the same as the "power" that is being used here. In
ZAMM,
Pirsig speaks briefly of "gumption traps" and ways to get out of them.
These traps are destructive to quality. The implication is that gumption
(or power) isn't something to "get a hold of". Rather, it is something that
everyone both has and should learn how to channel, or avoid "gumption
traps". Power literally defined is the capacity to do work. Pirsig would
say that everyone has power. "Empowering" is an adjective that has a
good
connotation, but "power" - by definition - really can't be broken into
subclasses as good and bad, etc. The "capacity to do work" is simply
this.
MOQ Online - http://www.moq.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu Jan 17 2002 - 13:08:40 GMT