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

[Platt Holden]

[Arlo previously]
> 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?

Offhand I can't think of any. Perhaps you'll suggest some? Anyway, as long as 
Professor Platt is allowed the same access to students to express his views as 
Professor Arlo, intellectual diversity will be served.

> [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.

So to you we owe our lives to others? Why am I not surprised?.

> [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.

My wife would object to your characterization of menial labor as low quality as 
would Buddhist monks. And I don't understand why funnelling wealth out of the 
local economy is immoral. As for you example of intellect over profit, no one 
is arguing that Walmart is an intellectual powerhouse. So you attempt to 
compare ZMM with my local Sam's store is irrelevant. NIce try though. :-)  

> [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".

So how would you propose to bring about "greater equity in incomes between 
those who produce and those who manage? (Note the premise: management doesn't 
produce anything.)

> [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.

Professor Platt would point out the benefits of a profit-driven capitalist free 
market economy compared to any other in the world, past or present, and would 
include Pirsig's sanction of such an economy as being more moral than others.

> [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"...

I reject the implication that to be regarded as intellectually competent you 
must find some good in everything. Reminds me of intellectuals who admired 
Mussolini because he got the trains to run on time.

Platt