[MD] Ham unlike you I will not create false idols

[Arlo Bensinger]

[Arlo previously]
Since you seem to favor "legislation" to ensure "diversity of thought", 
perhaps you'd answer my question as to whether or not that legislation 
should also provide equal time and representation to other ideologies, such 
as nazism, communism, tribalism, oligarcy, monarchy, or holocaust 
revisionist theories. Should we pass a law requiring teachers to teach that 
these are "all equal"?

[Platt]
Ah yes, the old slippery slope argument. Better to allow discussions of all 
ideologies than restrict them to just one favored by professors.

[Arlo]
I learned the slippery slope argument from the NRA, who have it crafted to 
perfection. But, like I said, the true problems are not discrimination 
against an "ideology", but against the idea that an ideology demands blind 
allegiance to all its tenants, and the unfortunate belief by many who, 
conditioned from talk radio, believe that deceptive and distortive rhetoric 
is a valid substitute for cogent argument in the academy. And, all things 
being equal, I wonder just how much "Professor Holden" would encourage his 
students to consider the positive aspects of liberal "ideology"? Maybe you 
could start here? I've told you that I agree with conservatives on gun 
rights and restricting "eminent domain". Can you tell me ANY issue where 
you break with party obedience and side with liberalism?

[Platt]
What are the greater considerations than "what's in for me" that you find 
so appealing.  Recall what Pirsig said about criticizing the motives of 
others. "There's an ego thing in there, too. They use the morals to make 
someone else look inferior and that way look better themselves." (Lila, 7)

[Arlo]
What about the motives of those who consume pornography? Or the motives of 
those who buy Mick Jaggar albums. Your quote applies with equal validity to 
both liberal and conservative ideologues.

As for what are greater considerations, for one I'd say protecting and 
preserving natural resources for others and for future generations.


[Platt previously]
The success of Walmart is immoral? Why? Give me one good Pirsigian reason..

[Arlo responded]
I have, several times. These parts of ZMM you simply dismiss, in favor of 
canonical adherence to one or two quotes from Lila.

[Platt]
Sorry. I meant give me a good Pirsigian reason based on the evolutionary 
moral hierarchy he set forth in Lila.

[Arlo]
Some background...

First, I don't limit the insights Pirsig has developed to "only those that 
agree with my political party". I find it sad that you so casually dismiss 
1/2 of what Pirsig had to say, simply because it doesn't fit into 
conservative ideology. And second, as evidenced in your denial of the 
abundance of public records and documents attesting to the actions at 
Hawk's Nest and Ford, anything that doesn't conform to conservative party 
dogma is simply and easily dismissed. I recall our discussion on the 
emergence-nature of the MOQ, and its quite clear idea of collective 
activity, which is the heart of the MOQ, and you simply dismiss it. So what 
you're really asking for me to "give you a good reason" based on the three 
or four decontextualized quotes you offer.

And its also a bit disingenuous to say "Walmart is immoral", what I've said 
repeatedly is that when "profit" is elevated to the Highest Goal of Human 
Activity, this is immoral. Walmarts success is based on "profit" being the 
sole focus of value. I can give you one example from Lila, and that is when 
Pirsig is considering selling the rights of his book to make a film. He says...

"But what he saw at this point was a social pattern of values, a film, 
devouring an intellectual pattern of values, his book. It would be a lower 
form of life feeding upon a higher form of life. As such it would be 
immoral. And that's exactly how it felt: immoral. ... That's what had 
produced all these something-wrong, something­wrong, something-wrong 
feelings. The mirrors were trying to take over the truth. They think that 
because they pay you money, which is a social form of gratification, they 
are entitled to do as they please with the intellectual truth of a book. 
Uh-uh."

Here is one example where "profit" is immoral, and also example of where 
there should be consideration for something greater than "what's in it for 
me".

Consider too, that Pirsig says money is a social level value, "Money and 
celebrity are fame and fortune, traditionally paired as twin forces in the 
Dynamic generation of social value."

And then goes on to say, "A value metaphysics makes it possible to see that 
there's a conflict between intellect and society that's just as fierce as 
the conflict between society and biology or the conflict between biology 
and death. Biology beat death billions of years ago. Society beat biology 
thousands of years ago. But intellect and society are still fighting it 
out, and that is the key to an understanding of both the Victorians and the 
twentieth century."

As for Walmart, what I've said is that while its immediately rewarding (in 
the form of cheap goods) its ultimately damaging to a healthy community. 
Something like the romantic/classic modes in ZMM. It is damaging not only 
because it replaces potentially higher quality labor with low quality 
menial activity, but also funnels wealth out of a local economy.


[Arlo]
Taking advantage of impoverished regions by paying wages that do nothing 
more that perpetuate poverty, is hardly a good thing. Like saying turning 
homeless people into indentured servants is "noble". If we really cared 
about them, we'd pay them not only enough to susist in their poverty, but 
enough to overcome their poverty.

[Platt]
So you favor a guaranteed income for everybody in the world?

[Arlo]
I favor greater equity in incomes for those who produce and those who 
manage. Not equal across any measure, as there will always be some labor 
that should be rewarded greater, but when CEOs earn hundreds of millions of 
dollars in profits by paying what amounts to nothing more than sustinance 
wages that perpetuate poverty and dependency, then I think things are out 
of kilter.

In the current dialogue, there is no reason the Coke executive should say 
to himself, "just because I can earn millions of dollars in profit paying 
cents an hour to people who can't even turn around and afford clean 
drinking water on their pay, doesn't mean I should. Maybe I should lower my 
personal profit a bit, and pay a decent living wage to the people who work 
for me, so that they can also enjoy the benefits of material wealth." 
Instead, when someone increases their income by, for example, slashing the 
health coverage of one of their employees, we APPLAUD it. All this is 
evidence that "wealth" in this country is seen as a measure of worth for 
the individual. Rich people are simply "of more value". Poor people are 
"worthless".

[Arlo previously about Hawk's Nest]
A simple web search will show the evidence, the court rulings, and the 
documents related to the case. The court found the company willfully and 
knowingly sent miners into silica without proper equipment, or even telling 
them it was silica.

[Platt]
Courts have been known to err have they not? I would like to see what the 
other side had to the say. Anyway, I thought you required "first-hand 
knowledge" to justify one's beliefs.

[Arlo]
Courts have been known to err. But until their is evidence of such an 
error, I'll accept the agreed upon views of the many independent 
investigators as to what happened. As it stands, there is a wealth of 
information and evidence as to their guilt, and none to their innocence. 
When, and if, I see such evidence, I'll re-evaluate my position. I find it 
so telling that even if the face of overwhelming evidence, and with many 
independent conclusions showing that evidence, you'd deny such a thing 
occurred simply out of what I can only assume is "loyalty to profit".

Sadly, one does not have to look much further than West Virginia's mines to 
this day to see the effects of what happens when "profit" becomes more 
important than all other things, including safety and concern for those who 
work for you.

[Platt]
What is IT?  What firm(s) did you work for? What did you find so immoral 
about IT (them)? How much profit is too much?

[Arlo]
Information Technology. What I found immoral was the way people were 
treated, as expendable "resources", who could have their lives turned 
upside down just so some upper level manager could earn a "bigger profit". 
I can't put monetary markers on "how much is too much", all I know is that 
when we think more about "money" and "profit" than about people and the 
environment, we are on a slow ride of decay.

[Platt]
Yes, "party obedience and blind divisiveness" practiced by Senate liberals 
like Kennedy, Boxer, Biden, Leahy and their ilk. Surely you don't expect 
the victims of their attack to take it lying down? Or do you?

[Arlo]
You're right, there is an equal amount of "party obedience and blind 
divisiveness" in the liberal ranks. If only you could see that both parties 
are guilty of this. But, like I said, I've given you several examples of 
where I break with "party" ideology, can you give me one example where you 
do? I mean, give me ONE issue with which you side with the "liberals"...

Arlo