[MD] Where have all the values gone?

[Arlo J. Bensinger]

Scott, Erin, Khaled, All.

[Scott]
What about no dialogue at all, which is what I assumed "absolute solitude" 
would mean.

[Arlo]
Good point. I'm not proposing the public-private, chit chat-intimate axes be
anything other than helpful analogies in thinking about the change in values
that Platt started this thread with. Indeed, the public-private spectrum I
started with is not a "multiple-single" distinction. There are "private
dialogues" that occur with potentially dozens of others. And public dialogues
that may include two. The distinction rests on the control over audience. A
public arena is an uncontrolled field. A private arena is a controlled field.
The benefits to both lie in their consideration as "expansive" and "reflexive".
Into all this, I would agree, should primary consideration be given to "esaping
the dialogue altogether", seeking pre-linguistic, pre-intellectual being. As is
implied, this is also something we, as a culture, don't value.

[Erin]
Why not mention the ways public-space is being degraded by chit-chat...is that
less sad to you?

[Arlo]
First, I don't think chit-chat degrades public space, nor do I think it degrades
private space. As I said, I think there are many social-emotional "phatic"
gains to "chit chat". That cultural discourse as a whole is de-valuing intimate
dialogue in both the public and private spheres, to the point of extreme
lopsidedness, that I find distressing.

[Erin]
BTW if you are in you are at home engaging in discourse with people around the
world on the internet or something else is that private engagement or public
engagement.

[Arlo]
Avoid techo-determination, Erin. It's a bad thing. :-) Web forums are generally
"public space" when the potential audience is not controlled. However, just
because the space one is in may be public, does not necessarily imply that all
engagement therein is also public. If I choose to ignore, for example,
interacting in the MOQ with anyone and everyone who disagrees with me, and
limit my interactions to a select, controlled audience, then my engagement
would be generally private. Like sitting in a public park with two friends and
speaking exclusively with them. As uncontrolled "strangers" are permitted into
my dialogue, it becomes "public".

This gets back to the distinction between the physicality of public and private
"space", and the metaphoricity of public and private space as descriptors of
engagement.

[Erin]
I think the the private/public split is less revealing than the
chit/chat--more meaningful conversation.

[Arlo]
I disagree. I think both distinctions highlight relevant aspects of activity
that have been devalued. Public engagement, as I said is expansive. Private is
reflexive. The dialogue can be as balanced intimate-chit chat as possible, but
if it is exclusively private it is as lacking as if it was exclusively
chit-chat.

[Arlo previously]
A day of solitude, ideally hoping it would foster 24 hours of "private-intimate"
dialogue would be a good thing.

[Erin]
Yes agree, the castle of solitude isn't so haunting. 

[Arlo]
When one never leaves, the castle becomes a self-imposed prison. Again, those
"moral pilgrims" of Platt's certainly had homes (castles of private-space
solitude), but they did not flood the moats, raise the drawbridge and lock
themselves within.

[Erin]
I just got this impression that if said an American Christian assembly worker
treated his work as a craft.....etc. etc.  the reaction would be poor
brainwashed shlob putting up with corp America.    But because it is a
Buddhist-like suddenly contentment with ones job is a beautiful thing.

[Arlo]
I'm not understanding your thoughts here, but taking a chance I'd say I agree.
Fostering Buddhist-like attitudes of identification can be beautiful, until it
becomes prohibitive to the individual to expect better. The onus, in my
opinion, is on both the individual and the labor setting to strive for
conditions and values where labor can identify with the object of that labor.
Sometimes this might mean the laborer seeking the Buddha in turning screws 10
hours a day, and sometimes this might mean demanding work that gives one
"artistry" over one's actions.

But, if all some get from Pirsig is that the solution to de-valuing
craftsmanship is to expect everyone to find the Buddha in every mundane,
repetitive, dull task I think it's a no-win game. This is akin to just saying
"the problem is not the trudgery, its your inability to be happy with it."

[Khaled]
So in way maybe it was these conditions that made people what
they are, and as the quality of life improves, we don't necessarily get
soft, but our values evolve, some for the better some for the worse.

[Arlo]
I think the first generation of "merchants", those following in the wake of "The
Wealth of Nations", held strong craftsman values and work ethics because these
values were a hold-over from pre-merchant language. After a generation or two
emerged soley within the mercantile-oriented culture, the effects of "money as
the measure of all things" became increasingly felt. As I said, there is no way
in mercantilian language to criticize the "Wally Compensation Equilibrium
Project". In pre-mercantilian language, since craft was valued higher than
reward, it would be easy.

Notice how Platt had been increasinly reluctant in a previous thread to even
consider that our culture should promote anything other than "wealth" as a
motivator of activity. The only reason anyone does anything, according to
mercantilian thought, is for financial renumeration. Money. "Wealth" is the
primary movitator, nay, the SOLE motivator of human activity. If this is true,
it is easy to see why craftsmanship has disappeared. Labor will always seek to
minimize effort and maximize reward. It is the mercantilian way. The only
possible outcome of "money as the measure of all things".

Arlo