[MD] Where have all the values gone?

[Platt Holden]

Sunday morning in South Carolina:

> On Sat, 21 Jan 2006 06:31:41 +0000, "Platt Holden" wrote:
> [Platt]
> I fail to see the connection between profits and alcoholism unless you're 
> saying there's something wrong with being obsessed about making money.
> 
> [Arlo]
> Yes.
> 
> [Arlo previously, quoting Pirsig]
> "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. ... 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."

What's wrong (immoral) about "gracelessness?" Victorians emphasized the "social 
graces." Yet, would Pirsig claim they were more moral?

> [Platt]
> I don't seem Bill Gates suffering from lack of guidelines on how to spend his
> billions.
> 
> [Arlo]
> You disagree with Pirsig's assessment? Or you think Bill Gates has recaptured
> the "codes of self regulation" Pirsig feels the Victorians lacked?

Yes, I disagree. If it's one thing the Victorians didn't lack it was "codes of 
self-regulation." They were a highly disciplined, uptight bunch compared to 
today's anything goes "hooking up" generation.   

 [Platt]
> As for gracelessness, take a look at grunge, the style of the young  today.
> Victorians had a sense of grace and manners far surpassing the clods filling the
> malls today.
> 
> [Arlo]
> I'm not sure what your point is. Pirsig said of the Victorians, that what was
> "depressing about them was their ugly gracelessness". Are you disagreeing? About
> your "grace and manners", Pirsig says of the Victorians, "The Puritans were
> never the gaudy, fraudulent, ornamental peacocks the Victorians were."

Pirsig seems to imply that Victorians were dishonest. Yet in those days, a 
man's word was his bound, a far cry from the litigious society of today. I 
think Pirsig, by and large, gives Victorians a bum rap. Not that they were 
paragons of virtue by any means.  

> [Platt]
> As I suggested, our culture provides more free time to pursue activity one cares
> about than any culture in history. 
> 
> [Arlo]
> According to what measure? How would you say our culture provides more free time
> than Icelandic culture? Danish? Canadian? Japanese? 

I'm comparing today's Western culture with the Victorian culture before the 
advent of the mandatory work week which today in the U.S. is 40 hours, in 
France, 35 hours. 
 
> According to Hedrick Smith, "Working couples lost an average of 22 hours a week
> of family and personal time between 1969 and 1999." And CNN has reported,
> "statistics show that last year the average American worked 1978 hours -- up
> from 1942 hours in 1990", saying that according to a study done by "The United
> Nations' International Labor Organization (ILO), "Workers in the United States
> are putting in more hours than anyone else in the industrialized world."
> 
> Fisher Vista's Management site contains the following report summaries.
> 
> Employees today spend an average of 44 hours per week working - six hours more
> than they're scheduled to work. - Families Work Institute, 1998
> 
> Eighty eight percent of employees say they have a hard time juggling work and
> life. Aon Consulting, 2000
> 
> Many workers also say they have to work very fast (68 percent) and very hard (88
> percent). - Families Work Institute, 1998
> 
> One in three employees brings work home at least once a week, an increase of 10
> percent over the past 20 years. - Families Work Institute, 1998
> 
> The number of employees who would like to work fewer hours rose 17 percentage
> points over this time period. - Families Work Institute, 1998
> 
> Sixty- three percent of Americans want to work less, up from 46 percent in 1992.
> - Families Work Institute, 1998
> 
> 40% of employees work overtime or bring work home with them at least once a week
> - Xylo Report, Shifts in Work and Home Life Boundaries 2000.

You can document any social ill you believe needs fixing. What these reports 
fail to account for are the vast numbers who produce little, like students, 
homemakers, government employees and retirees, putting huge demands on the  
rest of us to keep the economy going.      
 
> [Platt]
> I never claimed material things were responsible for craftsmanship, just that
> they made craftsmanship possible. I see no evidence that focusing on profit
> kills craftsmanship.
> 
> [Arlo]
> Pirsig did, at least he found that craftsmanship was being killed by
> non-identification between those who produce and what they produce, and
> similarly between those who consume and what they consume. I understand you
> reticence to acknowledge Pirsig on this.

Did Pirsig ever say profit was immoral?  Seems to me he said just the opposite. 

> However, just to see if I understand, let me get back to your original
> statement, and restate it. Tell me if you agree or disagree with this.
> 
> "The craftsman is driven to produce Quality things by a desire for material
> profit." Would you say this is fairly true on a societal scale, in your opinion?

I would put it this way. A craftsman who pays little or no attention to the 
bottom line will soon find himself digging ditches for a living.

> What I'm getting is that, yes, I've acknowledge that money is necessary in a
> money economy to secure basic materials. And that, yes, in a money economy a
> business must show profit to stay operational. But what motivates people to
> "produce Quality things" is not, in my opinion, a pursuit of wealth, but a
> pursuit of Quality. Money may enable the process, as do screws, ink and binder's
> glue. But the drive to produce Quality things is not driven by a need to "earn
> money". It is driven by people pursuing DQ, in labor they identify with, with
> artisic freedom to respond to that DQ as needed.

Whatever the drive may be, it's the "freedom to respond to DQ" that's the 
highest moral requirement. That's where the free market comes in, driven by 
profits invested in research and development.   

> [Platt said of the Wally Compensation Equilibrium Project]
> Why? Because the market determines whether Wally will make a profit or not. If
> the product he makes doesn't sell because of his shoddy workmanship, he'll be
> out of a job.
> 
> [Arlo]
> This skirts the question. I've already said Wally would do the minimum necessary
> to fulfil the labor contract. The question is, why should Wally "care" (to use
> Pirsig's word) about turning out high Quality work, unless that work provides
> direct financial renumeration above what he would receive by doing the bare
> minimum required? If his salary isn't going to increase, and he is not in danger
> of losing his job, why should Wally do anything more than the absolute lowest
> and least he can do?

If I were Wally's boss, I'd fire him. Businesses are not built by slackers, 
i.e.,  those who think the world owes them a living..

> [Arlo previously]
> You don't see the problem? You are the one who raised the issue of the loss of
> craftsmanship.
> 
> [Platt]
> I did? I've forgotten when. Can you refer to the post where I bemoaned the loss
> of craftsmanship?
> 
> [Arlo]
> Maybe I'm mistaken. If so, my apologies. You had made a post about the loss of
> "value" between the moral pilgrims and modern day people. Maybe it was me who
> brought "craftsmanship" into the picture, because, according to ZMM, it too has
> been a value that has slowly decayed in American society.
> 
> [Platt]
> Sense of identity with a product is required for it to have Quality? I don't
> think so.
> 
> [Arlo]
> So again, you disagree with Pirsig's assessment that "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."?
> 
> [Platt]
> I admire many  things that I neither possess nor had any part in 
> making, yet I recognize their quality instantly. 
> 
> [Arlo]
> I think Pirsig would say that in recognizing the quality, you display a sense of
> identity with it. 

Maybe so. In that case, if I can recognize the quality of the finished product 
coming off the assembly line, I can identify with it even if my part was only 
turning a screw.

> [Platt]
> I think its the profit-hungry types you rail against who have built the 
> machinery that has automated turning screws and freed labor from such tasks.
> Such "normative production practices" have given people the gift of time to
> craft quality lives, i.e. time to pursue excellence and follow their bliss.
> 
> [Arlo]
> Not according to any study I am able to find. All point to a steady increase in
> our daily labor time, and a steady decrease in our "non-labor" personal, family
> and enjoyment time. So, I suppose if we turn back the clock to 1969, when
> working couples had an average 22 hours a week MORE to devote to "following
> their bliss", that may help.

Like I said, "studies" can support any view. Surely we've come a ways from the 
Victorian era in fulfilling the moral demand for "freedom to respond to DQ." 
The problem today is lack of self-regulation, self-discipline. We dissipate our 
freedom in pursuit of  largely biological pleasures, with approval -- as Pirsig 
points out --  from intellectuals. That's what is really sad, no guidance from 
intellectuals as to what is moral and what isn't because it's all relative 
anyway. That's the weakness Pirsig attempts to rectify.

Platt