From: Platt Holden (pholden@sc.rr.com)
Date: Fri Jul 09 2004 - 16:04:59 BST
Hi Paul,
> Platt said:
> Well, since you (and Pirsig) have made it clear that's there's a
> distinction between Big Self and little self, and that little self is an
> intellectual pattern created by Big Self, I hesitate to buy into your
> premise here that there's such a thing as "self-interest" other than as an
> abstract concept.
>
> Paul:
> First, I think the "self" is a concept only to the degree that I think all
> static patterns are concepts - in that they are an abstraction from
> experience - real but not fundamental, the same as objects.
Platt:
Your distinction between "real but not fundamental" is fuzzy to me. Are
there no "real" stones as in the famous passage from Boswell's "Life of
(Samuel) Johnson?
"After we came out of the church, we stood talking for some time
together of Bishop Berkeley's ingenious sophistry to prove the
non-existence of matter, and that every thing in the universe is
merely ideal. I observed, that though we are satisfied his doctrine
is not true, it is impossible to refute it. I never shall forget the
alacrity with which Johnson answered, striking his foot with mighty force
against a large stone, till he rebounded from it, 'I refute it thus.'"
Paul:
> Second, given the above, I think the MOQ defines "little self" as static
> patterns from all levels and "self-interest" as static biological-social
> quality - i.e. biological pleasure and satisfaction mixed with a
> preoccupation with social status, ego and wealth.
Platt:
It will take some doing to convince me that intellectuals aren't as self-
absorbed as anybody else, if that's your point.
> Anyway, I was interested in your statement that self-interest may be
> detrimental to the achievement of corporate profit, which, incidentally,
> the MOQ also clearly defines as social quality. "...plain old money..., in
> the MOQ, is a pure and simple index of social quality." [Pirsig, Letter to
> Bo, Sept 15 2000]
All economics, the production and distribution of goods and services, is
"social quality" is it not?
> It seems to me there is a contradiction here - on the one hand you wave the
> flag for the freedom of the individual to pursue their own self-interest,
> and on the other you trumpet the virtues of capitalism. If we accept
> profit-making corporations as successful manifestations of capitalism,
> along with the explanation you have given for the relative failure of
> employee-owned organisations, we have a situation in which (at least one
> manifestation of) capitalism is threatened...by self-interest! Interesting.
The success of an organization, if she is an employee-owner, depends on
her self-interests coinciding with the interests of the organization.
Experience has shown that these interests are often incompatible.
Otherwise, employe-owned corporations would become the standard.
I don't see where resolving competing interests through mutual agreements
in a free market threatens capitalism. Nor do I see any contradiction.
Self-interest propels all behavior don't you think, whether employees
(including PhD's), CEOs, or independent contractors?
> I agree that this is a possibility, most likely in the smaller, more
> agile, enterprises, before the Dynamic gives way to the static trappings of
> gumption-sapping hierarchy, internal bureaucracy, and endless layers of
> middle management.
I presume you're describing governments.
> Platt said:
> If, on the other hand, you view self-interest as a "real" motivating
> force, then you have tapped into the drive for "betterness" that
> characterizes all organisms and that, according to Pirsig, explains
> evolution better than the Darwinian principle of purposeless chance.
>
> Paul:
> As above, I think it is a completely real motivating force that fits
> neatly into the biological and social levels of evolution.
And not intellectual? I don't think many PhD's would qualify as Mother
Teresas.
> Platt said:
> In regards to an employee-owned company, the tendency is for each
> employee to look after his own interests rather than the interests of
> the company as a whole. That's human nature.
>
> Paul:
> Whilst this may be so, in terms of the MOQ, this tendency is only man's
> biological and social nature. The MOQ makes it clear that intellectual
> patterns, and Dynamic Quality, are of a higher moral order and therefore
> can offer freedom from pure self-interest.
Where does the MOQ say or imply that intellectual patterns offer freedom
from self-interest?
> By way of analogy, eating,
> killing or screwing anything we desired was once "human nature."
According to Joseph Campbell, early man had all sorts of taboos against
"eating, killing or screwing anything we desired." Social taboos are more
"human nature" than the activities you describe.
> Society
> has largely succeeded in controlling these biological impulses but it seems
> clear to me that intellect has not yet managed to control man's obsession
> with social quality.
Seems to me Western society is still at war with biological impulses
called "terrorism" sanctioned by radical Islam society.
> Platt said:
> Do owners make mistakes? Sure. Are some owners crooks? Definitely. But
> employee representatives (union bosses) are no less susceptible to criminal
> behavior, nor are politicians, priests, trial lawyers or any other group
> you care to name.
>
> Paul:
> Ahh, the good old 'companions in guilt' defence.
Better than the "everybody says or does it" defense.
Best,
Platt
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 -
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 : Fri Jul 09 2004 - 16:28:14 BST