From: Arlo J. Bensinger (ajb102@psu.edu)
Date: Sun Jul 04 2004 - 16:42:32 BST
Platt asked:
> > If our mutual "ax to grind" is using the MOQ to
> > "improve the general
> > quality of life" are we, in effect, "putting
> > philosophy in the service of
> > a social organization--you in socialism and me in
> > capitalism--with dogmas
> > attending both sides?
Gav responded:
> i agree with platt here: it is immoral for the MOQ to
> be used as a support for any ideology.
> even though capitalism sits well with free markets it
> is as static as socialism in other ways:
> capitalism prefers kitsch to art - generally more
> popular and therefore profitable; capitalism values an
> obedient and predictable populace - better for
> business.
Arlo asks:
Hopefully this won't appear as to novice of a question. How is using the MOQ to
illuminate a higher quality view of economics (to speak very broadly) any
different from Pirsig himself using the MOQ to illuminate a higher quality view
of anthropology?
I did not take the conversation to be about the MOQ supporting "capitalism" or
"socialism", but about how applying the priniciples of the MOQ can illuminate
shortcomings or oversights *in both idealogies* in the discussion. After all,
were not the founders of these "idealogies" operating from a SO mindset? Would
it not be natural, then, to gather that they built SO duality into these
systems? (For example, and feel free to dispute this, I am coming to believe
that "alienation of labor" is a result of a SO duality in the production
system, whether discussed by Marx or Pirsig. If using the MOQ to higlight
alienating activities inherenet in our system as a result of SO duality, and
using this as a basis for criticizing the current economic idealogy is against
the spirit of the MOQ, I'm not sure I understand what the purpose of the MOQ
is?)
Furthermore, and I hope I am not out of place making this observation, but why
must this be about something VERSUS something else? Isn't the purpose of the
dialogue to transform an understanding within ourselves as to the object of
discussion? This notion that both "capitalism" and "socialism" must be accepted
or rejected as huge chucks "as is" is ridiculous. If we start with the notion
that free markets are more moral, and (as Anthony has indicated) that
employee-owned companies are more moral, is it not possible to build a
MOQ-based criticism against the instantiations of any economic system? This is
rightfully, I think, just what Gav was doing.
Is it not in the spirit of the MOQ to ask why, if employee-owned companies are
more moral the current economic system disfavors them? Or why, in the current
system, is it still the norm for labor to be disconnected from Quality (as
Pirsig laments in ZMM)?
Perhaps these are naive questions, if so, my apologies.
Arlo
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Jul 04 2004 - 16:45:27 BST