[MD] Where have all the values gone?

[Arlo Bensinger]

[Arlo previously]
Your response to my post indicates a belief that we must be either "all 
public" or "all private".

[Erin]
NO and I don't see how you got that at all

[Arlo]
Simple, Erin. Your reply to my entire post indicated that your read of it 
was that "public engagement" is "good" and "private engagement' is "bad". 
"To me this advice always make being a more private sound like a 
bad/selfish thing.  Maybe private people are home meditating rather than 
getting drunk in a pub, why is that wrong to be private.  Just  being 
social doesn't mean they are being good."

Platt's initial question was about a "value shift" (my words) that occurred 
sometime between the "moral pilgrims" (again, my words) arrival and 
modern-day American culture. One thing, for example, he (rightfully) 
ponders is the loss of "craftsmanship". This generally falls under a rubric 
we can call a "work ethic", "You worked hard. You saved, You did not waste 
anything. If possible, you grew your own food.  You did not complain. You 
did not expect anyone to do anything for you.  Discipline was not so much 
taught as lived, as an essential part of life of which there was no 
alternative."

This description of the "moral pilgrim" begets pointing out that these 
individuals were not "wholly individuistic" as Platt's description seems to 
present. They were not individually-oriented beings, living some Randian 
ideology of self-consideration only, they were very publicly and community 
oriented. Indeed, their daily activity was centered in "public space", and 
social engagement and community (defined NOT by some governmental 
abstraction, but by real and important social relations with neighbors) 
were of core importance to their activities.

Therefore, any discussion as to causality in change from "then to now" must 
also take into account the movement from valuing public-spaces to 
de-valuing public-spaces on a societal level, just as it must account for 
the movement from valuing "craftsmanship" to the de-valuing of the same. 
That's where my concern is, and where I find the dialogue interesting.

Your reply that "I don't think putting so much emphasis on being social is 
the right attitude.   Actually for somebody who prefers private maybe it is 
but people who are very, very social and can't stand to be alone it is 
not.  I think they SHOULD isolate themselves and practice flexing their 
private muscles more.", indicates that you believe that valuation of 
public-engagement or private-space is objective or aculturally determined 
by any given individual. I disagree. At any historical moment, individuals 
choose what they value, yes, but they do through a cultural lens. While it 
is not causal, it is structurating, and the trend of movement towards 
private-space isn't just individuals objectively making value decisions, it 
is the result  of a slow, historical change in the cultural lens. The same 
holds true for Platt's lament of the "work ethic". It's not the a bunch of 
individuals objectively decided to "not have a work ethic", but that 
cultural valuation of such an ethic has declined, so that individuals born 
into today's culture are structured not to value such an ethic. They can, 
of course, and many do. But the overall societal trend reflects a shift in 
valuation. Whether the shift in question is the "loss of a work ethic" or 
the "de-valuing of public engagement", this is where we can examine how 
dialogic changes have impacted societal valuation.

The paradox is, that although individuals should be (and are) "free" to 
follow their personal "values" (within parameters), we are never "free" of 
cultural forces that "push" us into valuing some things and de-valuing 
others. Although Pirsig's underlying "problem" was SOM, the severity,or 
crisis, of change in ZMM is centered around post-industrialization. The 
"work ethic" Platt laments can't be attributed soley to SOMist thinking, as 
SOMist thinking dominated the lives of the "moral pilgrims" as much as it 
does modern-America. I believe a primary causal agent for this shift can be 
traced to the "mercantile language" that began dominating discourse at 
around the same time.

In other words, the cultural "mythos" underwent a profound value 
transition. Whereas previously, artistrocracy "norms" were conferred and 
appropriated through the cultural dialogue, mercantile "norms" (the pursuit 
of money as the most noble goal) emerged as the new cultural "norm". In The 
Wealth of Nations, the kulturbarer (to use Pirsig's term for ZMM) of the 
era, Adam Smith proposed that the only legitimate goal of national 
government and human activity is the steady increase in the overall wealth 
of the nation, and subsequently the self.
In other words, "man" ceased being the "measure of all things", the role 
going towards "money". In America, this was most profound in the Northeast, 
as Pirsig says in Lila, "In a state like Minnesota or Wisconsin you can be 
poor and still feel some sense of dignity if you work hard and live fairly 
cleanly and you keep your eye on the future. But here in New York it seemed 
as if when you're poor you're just poor. And that means you're nobody. 
Really nobody. And if you're rich you're really somebody. And that fact 
seemed to explain ninety-five percent of everything else that went on in 
this region. ... It just got worse and worse around here. The rich got 
glitzier and glitzier and the poor got scuzzier and scuzzier until you 
finally got to New York City. Homeless crazies hovering over ventilator 
grates while billionaires are escorted past them to their limousines. With 
each somehow accepting this as natural."

Pirsig goes on, "Victorians in America, she explained, were nouveau riche 
who had no guidelines for what to do with all their sudden wealth and 
growth. What was depressing about them was their ugly gracelessness: the 
gracelessness of someone who has outgrown his own codes of self­regulation. 
They didn't know how to relate to money. That was the problem. It was 
partly the new post-Civil War industrial revolution. Fortunes were being 
made in steel, lumber, cattle, machinery, railroads, and land. Everywhere 
one looked new innovations were creating fortunes where there was nothing 
before. Cheap labor was pouring in from Europe. No income taxes and no 
social codes really forced a sharing of the wealth. After scrambling for 
their lives to get it, they couldn't just give it away. And so the whole 
thing became involuted."

Here Pirsig lays the problem not at the feet of a "free market" (of 
course), but at a society with no codes of self-regulation in the pursuit 
of wealth. The mercantile language, still inherently SOMist, had no way to 
internally regulate "wealth". Money became "all that mattered". Rich and 
poor became synonamous with "good and bad". Craftsmanship and the 
work-ethic faded to opportunistic "minimum effort required" labor because, 
in this language, all that should matter to the workman is to maximize his 
monetary reward and minimize his effort. That is the language of 
mercantilism. Do the least amount possible for the greatest possible 
reward. I'm reminded of a Dilbert strip where Wally professes he has 
reached "equilibrium". He says, as he kicks off the "Wally Compensation 
Equilibrium Project", "My goal is to lower the quality of my work until it 
is consistent with my salary." In the mercantile language, there is nothing 
and no way to criticize such a statement. Craft 0, Money 1.

This is the reason Platt is incapable of seeing that the loss of craft is 
tied to the existence of Walmarts. He expresses concern that Sam Walton be 
seen as a "business craftsman", but cares nothing for the vast majority of 
employees who hold positions where "craft" has given way to "lowest 
possible cost". The "butcher", who Platt now ridicules in his latest post, 
he has no concern for. But Sam Walton, by God, he's the one who matters. 
That Walmart sells low-cost goods, and undersells and puts out of business 
smaller (often family owned shops) who can't compete with foreign-labor and 
size-discounts is GOOD! Price, cost, and profit are the new measures of 
"craftsmanship". You see who is valued, and who is de-valued. Sam Walton 
matters, Joe Schmo stocking shelves does not. "Craftsmanship" becomes 
nothing more than "excellence in creating wealth".

A true interest in exploring "craftsmanship" as a value should either begin 
with, or largely consider, Pirsig's statement, "It is this identity that is 
the basis of craftsmanship in all the technical arts. And it is this 
identity that modern, dualistically conceived technology lacks. The creator 
of it feels no particular sense of identity with it. The owner of it feels 
no particular sense of identity with it. The user of it feels no particular 
sense of identity with it. Hence, by Phædrus’ definition, it has no 
Quality." There is no mention of "profit", no mention of "lowest cost" or 
"least effort per reward". It begins with "identification", and includes an 
artistic interaction between labor and object.

Pirsig continues, "I’ve said you can actually see this fusion in skilled 
mechanics and machinists of a certain sort, and you can see it in the work 
they do. To say that they are not artists is to misunderstand the nature of 
art. They have patience, care and attentiveness to what they’re doing, but 
more than this...there’s a kind of inner peace of mind that isn’t contrived 
but results from a kind of harmony with the work in which there’s no leader 
and no follower. The material and the craftsman’s thoughts change together 
in a progression of smooth, even changes until his mind is at rest at the 
exact instant the material is right."

David M. asked "How do we escape?" I believe ZMM provides that answer. 
"Identity" is what we should be sought for in labor, and in the market. 
Quality should be defined by this identity relationship between 
labor-object and subsequently object-consumer. This was Pirsig's main point 
is his statement above. I think the MOQ/ZMM also provides a strong 
framework for challenging SOMist mercantile language, the dominant language 
of our culture, the one Platt speaks exclusively. The MOQ certainly values 
the "free market", but also provides a way to combat mercantilian "money is 
the measure of all things". The two, which was a central part of what MSH 
said more than a year ago, are not inherently tied. You can have a "free 
market" but also value things other than money and bottom-line cost. This, 
of course, has to be a bottom-up revolution, not a top-down governmental 
hierarchy. The dialogue has to change, as it did when the mercantilian 
language took over.

Sorry my posts have been lengthy, I'll strive for brevity from now on.

Arlo