[MD] Where have all the values gone?

[Arlo J. Bensinger]

Hi Matt,

Great to hear you chime in. I don't want it to be mainly between Platt and I. We
(Platt and I) seem to be the prolific, and always at odds, points on
"social-moral" issues. I think we both try to avoid simply repeating the same
thing in each discussion, because of our distinct views, that's how it tends to
end up.

When this started, the "erosion" (my word) of values between the "moral
pilgrims" (my words) and todays citizenry, I had hoped a good way to examine
this would be to revisit ZMM and look at what Pirsig had decried as a loss of
"identification" or "care" with one's labor. Pirsig attributed this to
"dualistic", SOM-reason, but I think a closer examination would set the crisis
of ZMM at exactly the same point as the time between the "moral pilgrims" and
today. This same crisis is examined in a different light in Lila. In ZMM,
however, Pirsig focuses on the workplace (he does not differentiate
significantly between labor done "for work" and labor done "for play"). His
examples between the garages of earlier years and the garages today demonstrate
the "loss of identity" that underscores the decay in Quality in both production
and consumption. A recurrent theme is "care", something I believe Ant said that
Pirsig had wished he emphasized more.

My contention is that "care" about one's labor is directly related to one's
identifying with that labor (actually, this is pretty much straight out of
ZMM). And the erosion of "care"/"identity" underscores the erosion of
craftsmanship. I take very seriously Pirsig's contention 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."

Now, of course, the discussion could be on how to "get people to identify with
their labor". Is the solution to just tell people to go ahead and identify, or
is their also "structure of labor" to consider? Pirsig outlines what I feel are
some basic conditions that either foster or demonstrate "care", and they
revolve around "artistry". That is, the freedom for the laborer to, at any
given moment, follow DQ regarding his/her labor activity.

As to the structure of modern labor, Pirsig writes, "To speak of certain
government and establishment institutions as "the system" is to speak
correctly, since these organizations are founded upon the same structural
conceptual relationships as a motorcycle. They are sustained by structural
relationships even when they have lost all other meaning and purpose. People
arrive at a factory and perform a totally meaningless task from eight to five
without question because the structure demands that it be that way. There’s no
villain, no "mean guy" who wants them to live meaningless lives, it’s just that
the structure, the system demands it and no one is willing to take on the
formidable task of changing the structure just because it is meaningless....
But to tear down a factory or to revolt against a government or to avoid repair
of a motorcycle because it is a system is to attack effects rather than causes;
and as long as the attack is upon effects only, no change is possible. The true
system, the real system, is our present construction of systematic thought
itself, rationality itself, and if a factory is torn down but the rationality
which produced it is left standing, then that rationality will simply produce
another factory."

On to some of your points...

[Matt]
I would agree with you in the sense that it is o.k. to work with the 
goal of attaining money, or holding a job.  Lots of people I've encountered just
want  a9-5 type deal, with decent pay, so they focus mostly on their non-work
part of life.  Without many of these people, it would be hard to man
gas-stations, or what not.

[Arlo]
Although I agree with you, I'd point out one possibly circular argument here.
People work to attain money because they need money in our society. I would
never argue otherwise. But the question is, is money necessary ipso facto for
get people to work. Maybe it is for "unglamourous" jobs, such as you infer, but
is external motivation, "profit" really what we all labor for? The Open Source
movement Horse mentioned seems to suggest otherwise. People labor (for work or
for play) when they care and identify with their activity (whether it is "being
a mechanic" or "fixing my own motorcycle"), and at that point "profit" (or
external motivation) becomes secondary. It is something I acknowledge we need,
but not something that "makes possible quality products", any more than does
the screw or the ink make possible great literature.

I doubt, for example, that many (if any) great books were written primarily out
individuals seeking profit. Money certainly enables the process, because we
have a money economy, but the pursuit of it doesn't make great literature.
Care, identification, and an artful pursuit of DQ do. It is THIS that we should
emphasize in cultural discourse. So long as we accept the mercantilian view
that the only reason to work is for profit, we ignore the internal, personal,
pursuit of DQ that truly gives us "quality things". So long as we artifically
(in my opinion) assume all "labor" (work) requires "external rewards", we
create a barrier to care and identification. 

[Matt]
When the reasonable seeking of profit turns into the wanton, greedy 
recklessness of unethical/immoral profit seeking at any cost, this is where
problems arise.  there is nothing at all wrong with a free market, but when
there are not laws to protect citizens/employees, or even the environment from
serious harm, then it turns from a free into chaos.

[Arlo]
Agree, and this is where the malady of mercantilian language is most apparent. 

[Matt]
So I ask both of you, if the goal of maximizing share value for shareholders
which seems to be both good (income) and bad (negative social /environmental
effects) for many shareholders.

[Arlo]
In a money-based economy, money is needed to (as Platt states) secure basic
resources, and people (who need money to also secure basic resources) will work
to attain that money. So, securing profit in order to continue the businesses
existence is not a bad thing, indeed, in our society it is necessary.

But, does this "profit" trump all other concerns? Would it be "moral", for
example, for the company to increase profit by dumping toxic byproducts across
the border if it knew it would face no criminal liability? (I.e., put aside
"legal" and answer if it is "moral"). Is it "moral" for the company to cut
employee health care so that upper level management can secure "greater
profits" for themselves? Is it "moral" for a car company to refuse to make
basic design changes to prevent fatal events because altering the design would
"cost more" than settling lawsuits?

And, if it is moral for a company to "cut labor" to increase profit, why
shouldn't it be moral for individual to do the same? 

[Matt]
Another one: (I'll clip the quote that suggests socially-responsible consumption
is impossible (or difficult) because few companies present such an option).

[Arlo]
I agree. For this reason I support local owners, produce and stores, because
their activity is generally more publically available. This, however, is also
not always an option.

Until the dialogue includes the idea that when purchases something, one
purchases much more than the object, but purchases support for the modes of
production, the actions of the industry, and social effects of these, little
will change. All we will continue to care about is "cost", and we will turn a
blind eye to what that "cost" propagates.

I think I am cautiously optimistic about growing numbers of people thinking
socially-responsible when they consume. Sadly, since many people have bought
into the "myth of the liberal media", outlets that provide information about
companies are turned off by many who instead feast on a diet of nothing but
corporate propaganda. Although I have to hand it to Bill O'Reilly who seemed to
be the only "far and balanced" commentator who openly criticized the American
House of Oil. But, by and large, its what the corporations want reported that
gets reported. Not that the "old media" was perfect, it was too in house with
corporate interests. But at least it was not so incestuous as it is with Fox.

But the underlying question, the one at the heart of your post, and this thread,
is that "is anyting immoral in the pursuit of profit?" Only when people revisit
that question will social change occur. 

You mention Bill Gates, in response to Platt, as a model for charitable
donations. But let's not forget the "practices" Gates used to attain his wealth
in the first place. Same with Carnegie and the other barons of early American
industry, such as Pullman. Let's take a look at labor conditions in their
factories, deplorable and despicable by today's standards, the dealings that
secured their wealth by manipulating the market to gain "unfair" advantages
(such as paying off government officials for legislation that gave them
advantages over competitors). Or, consider Pullman, who paid his labor not in
dollars, but in Pullman-dollars, effectively making them indentured servants.
Ask yourself, as "great" as Platt makes this barons out to be, would you have
wanted to work for them (other than as upper-level cohorts)? Their "charity",
to me, is little more than a PR tactic, or a way of securing historical
recognition. If they were truly "charitable", they may have paid a little more
concern to laborers who made their wealth possible.

[Matt]
#1: Grunge is not the "style" today, but maybe 15 years ago.  Also, clothing is
not a true representation of character.

[Arlo]
And who profited off "grunge"? Who sold "grunge" clothing, CDs and promoted
grunge acts? Why, large corporations concerned with profit, that's who. The
same large corporations that are now promoting increasingly low-cut jeans and
retro-seventies slogan shirts.

"Style" is big industry.

[Matt]
#3:  If you ever think there is a point in time where the young generations
style will be something you would adhere to, it is not going to happen.

[Arlo]
It's always about "turning back the clock" to some. Whether it was the parents
of Elvis' generation, or today's, to some to solution is always a "return to
the good old days". As Joseph Campbell quotes Arnold Toynbee in The Hero with a
Thousand Faces, "A schism in the body social, will not be resolved by any
scheme of a return to the good old days (archaism), or by programs guaranteed
to render an ideal projected future (futurism), or even by the most internal
linkrealistic, hardheaded work to weld together again the deteriorating
elements. Only birth can conquer death-the birth, not of the old thing again,
but of something new."

Arlo