[MD] Where have all the values gone?

[Platt Holden]

Good Morning Arlo,
 
> [Platt]
> I wonder if you consider those motivated by profit in a free market to
> be immoral. You seem to believe that other motivations such as social
> recognition or personal satisfaction are morally superior to seeking a
> financial return from one's investment in time and effort.  Would you
> care to elaborate on the moral standing of various motivations
> involved in work? Is Pirsig's moral structure helpful in answering the
> question? 
 
> [Arlo]
> I'm not saying anything is superior to anything else. I was just
> wondering if in your proposal that "profit makes possible quality
> things", you meant "profit" solely in terms of financial remuneration
> or some form of material acquisition.

Glad to know you don't think making a "profit" is in any sense 
immoral. Every once in awhile some politician will rant and rave 
about "obscene" profits or otherwise cast profit in a negative light, 
claiming it can only occur at someone else's expense because there's 
only so much wealth to go around. 

In my proposal that "profit makes possible quality things" I meant  
"profit" solely in terms of financial remuneration in a free market 
whereby the basic materials needed to produce quality things are 
produced. My focus for the statement was the hardware that makes it 
possible for a bootmaker to craft a superior shoe or a programmer to 
code a more perfect bit of software.  As a painter I rely on Winsor & 
Newton to produce the paints I use and D'Arches to manufacturer the 
paper on which my meager efforts appear, both companies in business 
to make a profit who I gladly pay for their products, even if my 
paintings are done solely for my own satisfaction. I would venture to 
say that at the root of any quality endeavor you'll find certain 
materials necessary to produce the product or service in question -- 
materials offered on the open market by profit-making manufacturers. 
Thus, going back to square one, "Profit makes possible quality 
things."                      

> In your last post, you seemed to indicate that short of this form of
> material profit, the only other option to "get people to do quality
> work" (my quote) was coercion.

What I meant to convey that the only alternative to profit to produce 
the basic  materials necessary for quality work was coercion. Those 
blocks of stone the Greeks used to carve their magnificent statutes 
were acquired from quarries using slave labor.

> I asked in a previous post how something like the "Wally Compensation
> Equilibrium Project" could be criticized from within mercantilian
> language (that the acquisition of wealth is what drives human
> activity). His statement, "my goal is to lower the quality of my work
> until it is consistent with my salary" seems to point directly to the
> loss of craftsmanship that started this thread.

All general statements such as "acquisition of wealth drives human 
activity" are subject to individual exceptions. There are plenty of 
people who could care less about making any more money than is 
necessary to get by. Some even choose to live in the streets.

> If material profit, or money, is what "makes possible quality things",
> then Wally's statement is unchallengable, and indeed, a logic and
> natural statement that all should embrace.

I doubt it.

> But belief, though, is that people "labor" (and I'll use this work to
> refer to both "work" and "non-work" deliberate activity) and produce
> quality things when (in alignment with ZMM) they "identify" with the
> labor. Then they are guided by forces (DQ) that exists in artistic
> relation between them and the object of their labor. Material
> compensation is not the primary motivator (and certainly not the
> exclusive, all powerful one the mercantilists see it as) of labor
> activity.
> 
> I think this rests on a specific division in mercantilist language,
> namely that "work activity" must be induced by external forces (money
> profit), while "non-work activity" is internally driven. The answer
> for this is likely "identification", we "identify" with "repairing our
> motorcycle", we "do not identify" with our "job". I think it is the
> idea that we "need money to labor" that contributes to the idea that
> "work" is something external and not something we would ever normally
> do. Like Marx, I believe that this distinction is artificial.
> 
> Now, is the solution to "just go ahead and identify" with every
> tedious, monotonous, mundane task that is given us? Maybe? What do you
> think?

Well, to tell you the truth, I don't see the problem. So calling for 
a solution begs the question. "What do you mean by identifying with 
the product of your labor and why is that something you should seek?" 
More important to me, "What's immoral about needing money as a motive 
to work?" 
 
> As for "symbolic profit", I tossed that out there because I do think
> that many people labor in order to achieve social status recognition
> or admiration. Most people who find themselves in situations like
> Wally would find motivation in achieving status within his/her
> immediate peer group, or perhaps recognition from the industry. This,
> too, is external motivation. I only presented it as another
> explanation as to why people labor.

I think people work for any number of reasons, just as people see  
quality in any number of things.  

> You ask about Pirsig's moral structure, and I think that a re-read of
> ZMM shows that "identification" with one's work is the core, or seed,
> for the production of "quality things". That is, Pirsig may say,
> "identification with one's labor gives us quality things." I think
> this identification, and internally driven pursuit of quality, gives
> us the Open Source movement Horse mentioned. Maybe a little symbolic
> profit thrown in among the crowd, but primarily identification and an
> artistic flow between programmer and code.
> 
> Two quotes from ZMM point to this.
> 
> "But the biggest clue seemed to be their expressions. They were hard
> to explain. Good-natured, friendly, easygoing...and uninvolved. They
> were like spectators. You had the feeling they had just wandered in
> there themselves and somebody had handed them a wrench. There was no
> identification with the job. No saying, "I am a mechanic." At 5 P.M.
> or whenever their eight hours were in, you knew they would cut it off
> and not have another thought about their work. They were already
> trying not to have any thoughts about their work on the job. In their
> own way they were achieving the same thing John and Sylvia were,
> living with technology without really having anything to do with it.
> Or rather, they had something to do with it, but their own selves were
> outside of it, detached, removed. They were involved in it but not in
> such a way as to care."
> 
> "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.
> ... It was beautiful because the people who worked on it had a way of
> looking at things that made them do it right unselfconsciously. They
> didn’t separate themselves from the work in such a way as to do it
> wrong. There is the center of the whole solution."

To me, the people who invent and the produce the machines for profit 
that alleviate the backbreaking, boring work of previous generations 
have done more to open up personal responses to DQ than any theory of 
loss of identity with work. The leisure time most people have to 
pursue their interests beyond work is huge compared to just a few 
years ago. The problem I see with the modern age is simply that 
people don't know that DQ exists and therefore waste a lot of their 
spare time in frivolous pursuits. 

See, for me craftsmanship simply means pursuing  excellence which 
means seeking betterness (DQ). If you can't do that in your job, find 
another job or continue the pursuit on your own time. As Joe Campbell 
advised, "Follow your bliss." Chances are that's the most moral thing 
you can do. I thank God -- and all those profit-making businesses --
for all the modern conveniences that have given us more freedom to 
follow our blisses than ever before in history.

Always a pleasure to talk with you, Arlo.

Platt