[MD] French ingredient in the soup of sentiments

[craigerb at comcast.net]

Arlo, Khaled, SA, All,
Arlo, thanks to SA, now I think we are basically on the same page.  At the risk of muddiing the waters, I want to add two hurrahs for the (free) market & one boo for state intervention.
First hurrah: I visit Tibet wearing my synthetic jogging suit & meet a local wearing a yak-skinned coat.  We exchange.  (Those who claim all values are culturally imposed may not like the example.)  This is the essence of the marketplace.  I prefer the coat to the suit & the local, the reverse.  The amazing thing from an economic standpoint is that we both profit.  The alchemists' dream fulfilled:  profits out of nothing (extra).
Second hurrah & first boo:
"The free market can prevent a bad book from being published; but it takes the state to prevent a good one."
Craig  
 


-------------- Original message -------------- 
From: Arlo Bensinger <ajb102 at psu.edu> 

> Craig, Khaled, SA, All, 
> 
> [Craig previously] 
> If people have the right (non SOM) mindset, then in a free market, they 
> will tend to avoid problems. If they don't, then IN SPITE OF the free 
> market, they can have problems. 
> You've identified the SOM mindset as the problem--why tar the free market 
> with the same brush? 
> 
> [Arlo] 
> SA, you anticipated my reply correctly (and no worries ever about 
> overstepping). I'm not tarring anything. Perhaps this issue is semantic, to 
> me "in spite of" indicates a counter-force. "I was sick IN SPITE OF eating 
> all those apples". With this in mind, saying there were problems IN SPITE 
> OF the free market shows the belief that a free market somehow opposes 
> "problems". 
> 
> What I am saying, and I believe underscores Pirsig's (correct) analysis in 
> ZMM, is that the "market" (let's drop "free" for right now) is only as good 
> as the valuistic system of the individuals partaking of it. When that value 
> system is SOMist, the market shows the malady that ZMM was written to 
> expose and counter. This is why, to repeat my example, an American and a 
> Tibetan Highlander will make significantly different decisions in the 
> market. A "free market" in Tibet and a "free market" in America will 
> operate very differently. Labor, in these markets, will be treated 
> differently, products will be produced and consumed differently. This may 
> be a banal truism, but it gets back to the notion that simply demanding a 
> "free market" ignores the fundamental problems of what the underscoring 
> cultural value system (metaphysics) will create, and which must be addressed. 
> 
> The "social regulations" you scoff at are the direct result of individuals 
> opposing the devastating effects (regarding labor then, and consumption 
> now) of an SOMist-underscored market. I agree, with some reservation, that 
> the attempt to regulate the market is misguided, that true reform begins at 
> the valuistic system of the individuals. However, given that our culture is 
> predominantly underscored by an SOMist (and mercantilistic, which may be 
> two sides to the same coin) mindset, I think a wholly unregulated market 
> would only produce the same conditions pre-1920's that individuals revolted 
> against the first time around. (Yes, yes, I know, it would be wonderful to 
> go back to the 1890s AS Carnegie or Pullman, but woeful to go back as 
> someone who worked in one of their factories). That is, what we SHOULD have 
> done in the 1920s in counter the mercantilistic dialogue, which addresses 
> the ROOT of the problem, rather than applying band-aids from within the 
> SOMist frame. 
> 
> In short, the capistocracy brought social regulation on itself through its 
> SOMist/mercantilistic devaluation of people, labor, identity, care and 
> Quality. Had the "pursuit of power and wealth" been balanced even slightly 
> with a regard for "employees as people and not commodities to be discarded 
> like rags and treated like dirt", you likely would not have the degree of 
> regulation you see today. 
> 
> To do away with regulations, while supporting the mercantilistic, "power 
> and wealth", SOMist mindset that underscores our culture will only push us 
> back to what we revolted from in the first place. As Platt had asked 
> before, until such a time as the MOQ is generally accepted, what do we do? 
> 
> This from ZMM, "The cause of our current social crises, he would have said, 
> is a genetic defect within the nature of reason itself. And until this 
> genetic defect is cleared, the crises will continue. Our current modes of 
> rationality are not moving society forward into a better world. They are 
> taking it further and further from that better world. Since the Renaissance 
> these modes have worked. As long as the need for food, clothing and shelter 
> is dominant they will continue to work. But now that for huge masses of 
> people these needs no longer overwhelm everything else, the whole structure 
> of reason, handed down to us from ancient times, is no longer adequate. It 
> begins to be seen for what it really is...emotionally hollow, esthetically 
> meaningless and spiritually empty. That, today, is where it is at, and will 
> continue to be at for a long time to come." 
> 
> I say until such a time, individuals will demand social programs to offset 
> the dehumanizing effect of an SOMist-based market that is concerned only 
> with "power and wealth". 
> 
> Arlo 
> 
> 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/