[MD] Where have all the values gone?

[David M]

Hi Platt

I seem to recall that Pirsig set a world record
in rejections from commercial publishers.
Why were they so blind to quality?

DM

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Platt Holden" <pholden at davtv.com>
To: <moq_discuss at moqtalk.org>
Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2006 12:38 PM
Subject: Re: [MD] Where have all the values gone?


> Hi Arlo:
>
>> [DM had said]
>> We can invest in assets, assets are quality things we have made. What 
>> have
>> quality things got to do with profit?
>>
>> [Platt responded]
>> Profit makes possible quality things. Pirsig's books would not have been
>> possible without profit.
>>
>> [Arlo interjects]
>> How, then, on earth did all those books from Hammurabi on up ever get 
>> written?
>> Was profit responsible for Socrates writings? What about Confuscious?
>
> Hammurwho? Those folks all lived BC when what got made got made by slaves 
> or serfs.
> Not the most morally uplifting way to produce books (or stone tablets) 
> would you say?
>
>> What do you say to this, if we consider "profit" to be divisible into 
>> "material"
>> and "symbolic". That is, some forms of profit are "material", they 
>> involve the
>> physical acquisition of stuff (such as money, homes, cars, boats, etc.). 
>> Other
>> forms of profit are "symbolic", they involve such intangibles as respect,
>> social praise, esteem, historical recognition and cultural-social 
>> admiration.
>>
>> In your statement above, do you feel material profit is required, or 
>> would
>> symbolic profit potentially "make possible Pirsig's books"? Is material 
>> profit
>> more powerful than symbolic?
>
> Celebrity a form of "profit?" Now there's a quaint idea. Anyway, books are 
> made of
> paper which comes from trees which come from forests. No easy job to go 
> into those
> forests, cut down those trees, transport them to the mill, grind them up 
> into pulp,
> and then make paper. Now you can force people to do such work, or you can 
> motivate
> them. Which do you think is the more moral? Or, have I missed your point?
>
>> Now let's consider a possible third form of "profit", and call that 
>> "personal".
>> This form of profit would consist of internal satisfaction, fulfillment 
>> and
>> self-worth.
>>
>> Does that form of profit underscore any work activity? Does that "make 
>> possible
>> Pirsig's books" (potentially)? Or are you suggesting that only (or 
>> primarily)
>> material or physical profit (renumeration, money, things) are responsible 
>> for
>> Quality things when you say "Profit makes possible quality things".
>
> I'm saying that it's better to produce books and run the publishing 
> business using
> voluntary rather than slave labor. The media by which Pirsig's ideas get 
> transmitted
> beyond a small circle of conversationalists requires thought and labor. 
> Better for
> everyone if that thought and labor is motivated by the carrots of profit 
> rather than
> sticks of force. I'm sure you agree.
>
> Perhaps I sould revise and extend my remarks to say, "Profits or coercion 
> make
> possible quality things. Which would do you consider more moral?"
>
> Best,
> Platt
>
>
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------
> This mail sent through IMP: http://horde.org/imp/
> moq_discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
>