[MD] Ham unlike you I will not create false idols

[Platt Holden]

> Platt,
> 
> You speak with forked tongue.
> 
> On one hand American Idol is evidence of the decay of value in America, on
> another is a wonderful profit making enterprise. On one hand all the consumers
> of Walmart evidence its quality, on the other all the consumers of American Idol
> evidence is their "inability to discriminate". On one hand you shout how I am
> trying to make everyone "just like me", on the other you find anyone who feels
> different than you stupid.

Well, it's not a black and white world as you have often rightfully pointed 
out. But, I think you miscast my views. Nowhere have I suggested that making a 
profit guaranteed quality. What I have suggested that the profit motive for 
making goods and services available is better than alternatives that require  
coercion at the point of a gun. As for your solutions to what you find wrong 
with American culture, I've merely pointed out that to put your solutions into 
effect would call upon government interference in our lives. Finally I don't 
think I've accused anyone of being stupid,. just lacking in good taste, like 
those who think Mick Jagger can sing as well as Frank Sinatra.    

> [Platt]
> Nothing wrong with American Idol making a buck. Nothing wrong with contestants
> making a buck. What Ham and I deplore is the taste of those who make the show
> and the contestants successful.
 
> [Arlo]
> So the vendors are inassailable and noble, but the consumers have deplorable
> taste? I take it you also feel the same way about Larry Flynt, who's money
> making ventures make him a model for material profit. Its the stupid folk who
> are too stupid to "discriminate".

Glad you mentioned Larry Flynt because he represents the victory of biological 
forces (sex) over social forces, supported by intellectuals who take his side 
in defending his his right to rip apart social stability by peddling his porn. 
Have you checked out of wedlock births lately? 

> [Arlo previously]
> If quality is not determined by what people value, what determines it? What
> Platt values? What "the discriminatory elite" value?
 
> [Platt]
> Quality is freedom of individuals to determine for themselves what has quality.
 
> [Arlo]
> Then why when individuals freely choose for themselves that American Idol has
> quality, you don't see this as evidence that the show has quality? Oh, that's
> right. The consumers are too stupid to properly discriminate like you.

What you seem to miss all the time is that quality isn't something that is "out there"
that everyone can immediately recognize. Quality is determined individually, one by
one, depending on each individual's life experiences. There is no one right way to
assess quality just as there is no one right way to think. There are, however,
standards of quality set by those who specialize in certain fields. Joe 
Montana, for example,  set the standard of quality for quarterbacks. Yefrim 
Bronfman sets a standard for performing Rachmaniov's Third Piano Concerto.
Or don't you believe that some people do better than others?  

> [Platt]
> There you go again condemning all of America. In this case, its politics. 
> Further, you're convinced American society needs to be "saved."  Methinks 
> you're beginning to sound like a fundamentalist preacher.
> 
> [Arlo]
> Empty rhetoric. I don't condemn "all of America", but I'm not blindly allegiant
> to it like a robotic servant either. Of course, that's your world, criticize
> America The Great at all and you are Pol Pot.
> 
> Conservatives (archaists) and liberals (futurists) both are static. The way
> forward will only be paved by DQ. You rightly challenge the liberals for
> thinking that social policy can ipso facto "build" a great future, but in return
> all you offer is a retreat to "the good old days". Where we are headed no one
> knows... but we can be reasonably sure that cultural values will align the path.

I do not "offer a retreat to the good old days." Unlike you,  I'm not out to 
change the world or human nature by proposing things like more money for arts 
education that requires taking from some for the sake of others. I merely 
comment on the passing scene using Pirsig's metaphysics as a guide. 

> And when you are unable to bring any criticism to the producers of "sleeze"
> (such as American Idol) because there is nothing wrong with "making a buck", and
> instead blame the undiscrimating populace for their inability to tell good from
> bad, well, as I said, Profit is King.

And who would you like to be King? No need to answer. I know. 

> Interestingly, when that "undiscriminating populace" chooses to select at
> Walmart, you use this as evidence of Walmart's high quality. Of course, this
> convenient "when it supports my position I say this, when it doesn't I say that"
> type rhetoric is pretty expected.

If you say so.

> [Platt]
> There you go again with your culturally-determined everything. To you, nobody
> has a mind of his own. We're all just cultural robots. Sad.
> 
> [Arlo]
> There you go again thinking your culture played no part in your discerning "what
> you like". We're not robots (although I saw the dichotomy coming), but we are,
> like Pirsig states, bound by cultural glasses. Your favorite singer is "good" to
> you because of the cultural values you've appropriated.

If you say so.

> [Arlo previously]
> It also neglects that music has many forms, from throat singing to Wagnerian
> opera, from digideroos to cellos, from classical to punk, from Sinatra to Mick
> Jagger. How would you determine, or use "discrimination" to determine which is
> best, not only for "you", but for "everyone"?
> 
> [Platt]
> I wouldn't think of determining what is best for everyone. You would though. You
> want to "save society" by persuading everybody that your way is the best way.
> 
> [Arlo]
> Of course, if you read what I wrote, you'd see such an accusation is idiotic.
> Your use of "discriminting" as a code-word for "superior ability" is so damning
> to your rhetoric, I don't know why you attempt to hide. And to throw sand into
> everyone's eyes, you accuse me of the very position you are advocating.
> 
> Sinatra is better than Jagger "for everyone". Your idea of "quality" is superior
> and discriminatory, while everyone who feels differently is woefully unable to
> discriminate properly. 
> 
> As for the "save society" comment, again, its not hard to read my post, and see
> that I lambast both conservatives and liberals in favor of "something new",
> Dynamic Quality. How could I know what that is?

Well, if you don't know what it is, how can you say that I don't know?
 
> If you re-read the Toynbee quote, how you can't see that is a brilliant example
> of Pirsigian analysis, is beyond me. But you miss this because of your utter
> tunnel vision for conservatism. 
> 
> [Arlo previously]
> There is no "right wing conspiracy" but that the conservatives are
> "anti-intellectual" and socially-minded, is evident from every radio show,
> every press conference and every soapbox attack they make against
> "intellectuals", beginning with THEIR paranoic fear that "liberals are
> conspiring to keep conservative thought off campus".
> 
> [Platt]
> Well documented, or haven't you been following the hearings in Pennsylvania?.
> 
> [Arlo]
> You are familiar with Occam's Razor, are you not? The simplest explanation  is
> probably the best. Well, if the Academy is populated by more liberals than
> conservatives, I'd attribute this to (1) exposure to diverse strands of thought
> at the university level naturally instills liberal-minded thinking, and also (2)
> those entering the Academy are often the least concerned with "profit", and
> since Money is the conservative God, conservatives choose a career in business.
> 
> I've been with the University for over a decade, in undergraduate classrooms and
> graduate. I've never seen a "conservative" position denied, but I have seen a
> demand for support beyond "Rush Limbaugh says so".
> 
> But since you are concerned with political ideology being undiscriminated in the
> academy, perhaps you'd like equal time for Nazism, Communism, Tribalism,
> oligarchists and monarchists? What about holocaust revisionists? Shouldn't we
> give their "theories" equal time in the classroom?

So you compare conservativism to Nazism? I'm not surprised since you've been 
"acculturated," .i.e., brainwashed by so many years in the academy. Maybe 
you're right about being a victim of culture after all. 

> [Arlo previously]
> Public schools must balance the books, if not, why are so many schools cutting
> arts and music programs? They are the least "valuable", hence they are the first
> cut. Doesn't that make sense? Why cut the most valuable programs first? They are
> the least "valuable" because they are not vocational, and vocational education
> is concerned with "preparing you for a job", i.e., what you need to know to make
> money.
> 
> [Platt]
> So what are you proposing, to cut the vocational programs in favor of the music
> program?
> 
> [Arlo]
> I could make that argument. Do you feel vocational education is the purpose of
> the school system?

Yes because to succeed in the modern world you need to know how to read, write 
and do math. Sadly, the public education system is graduating millions who are 
deficient in all categories.

> [Platt]
> If you think there no so sex involved, watch the contestants, the judges, the
> audience, and listen to the song lyrics. Sleaze abounds. I've watched it enough
> - once or twice for 5 minutes or so --to see and hear that. It's obvious.
> 
> [Arlo]
> Oh, right. Music, other than what Platt likes, is all about sex. How silly me
> for forgetting. Here I thought contestents were going on the show to earn money
> and get fame, when they were really going on the show because singing about
> "biological quality" gives them biological pleasure. And here I though the
> producers were making the show to make a quick buck... or wait, there's nothing
> wrong with the producers, its the consumers who are unable to properly discern
> value. So.. and, here I thought consumers watched the show because they too
> fantasized about celebrity and wealth, when in fact they watched it because they
> are sexually drawn to the sex beats of the sex songs by the sexy singers. Sex,
> sex, sex. Who sounds like a "preacher"?

You got something against preachers? My God man, you constantly preach about 
identity and caring, among other things.

> Nope, you can wag your biological finger at this all you want. Its all about
> money. Money in production, money for the contestents, and the love we have of
> celebrity and wealth. 
> 
> [Arlo previosly]
> I don't "hate the profit motive". Indeed, it was my suggestion to consider that
> people labor for more reasons than profit. Granting that in our world we need
> money, I see nothing wrong with considering "material profit" in our labor. I
> just think that (1) it is pushed too much, to the point where "profit" trumps
> all other concerns, and (2) if we backed off "material profit", and talked about
> "identity" and "care" in our labor, we'd all be better off. And we'd be without
> "American Idol". But, since Profit is King, it's here to stay.
> 
> [Platt]
> Well, what do you know. After all this, Arlo sees nothing wrong with material
> profit. Sing Hallelujah.  But Arlo simply can't let go of how we ALL would be
> better off following his road to Utopia.
> 
> [Arlo]
> Oh right. Wanting to talk about Pirsig's notion of identity and care in labor is
> "following me to Utopia". You are really something else sometimes, Platt.

Pray tell us how you will get people to identify and care?

> I did not say I see "nothing wrong with material profit". I said I understand we
> need money, and see nothing wrong with considering money in our labor activity.
> But there are also other things to consider, like Pirsig's notions of "identity"
> and "care".

I say make as much money as you possibly can while following your bliss so that 
you too can buy a boat and write about metaphysics if that's what you want to 
do. I do not want to change you in any way, shape or form. I will be active 
only in defending you freedom to make a buck, care, identify or whatever floats 
your boat including you freedom to have different ideas and tastes than mine. 
In turn, do not interfere with me with your grand designs for a better world. 
That's the moral thing to do because it allows DQ to flourish.

Platt