[MD] Unreality of Equality

[David M]

Hi Arlo

A great deal of consumption certainly goes way beyond any use
value. Why is this? A book in the UK called 'Status Anxiety'
is quite useful on this. It talks about the loss/weakinging of former
social structures and how many try to make up for their current
lacks by  demonstrating their social worth/success by purchasing
symbols such as expensive cars, homes, holidays, etc that they do
not enjoy in themselves only as symbols of their social status.

DM


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Arlo J. Bensinger" <ajb102 at psu.edu>
To: <moq_discuss at moqtalk.org>
Sent: Thursday, March 02, 2006 4:53 AM
Subject: Re: [MD] Unreality of Equality


> Greetings DM,
>
> [you wrote]
> Can't help thinking that holding inequality in such high esteem is the 
> problem,
> so we allow the wealthy to increase their wealth by a mountain of lies.
>
> [Arlo]
> Agree. And I think the key thing to watch is how "inequality" morphs into 
> "of
> greater value". Inequality of skill drives social evolution. Inequality of
> value destroys social evolution.
>
> I think, as I've said many times, that the origins of the modern dilema 
> trace
> back to the rise of mercantilian discourse, which put us on a slow ride 
> from
> "man is the measure of all things" to "money (wealth) is the measure of 
> the
> man". Money, in western culture, has become the dominant force in defining
> "who" has value, and how one should focus their lives to achieve value.
>
> We come to think of the wealthy as somehow inherently "superior", and 
> certainly
> more deserving than the lazy, worthless "moochers". Those who are poor are 
> so
> because they are stupid and lazy. This has become the underlying reality 
> in
> modern discourse. And if someone is poor, and they can't afford medicine 
> or
> food, then they should just do everyone a favor and die. Sounds harsh, but 
> its
> really at the bottom of the rhetoric.
>
> This is the progression from inequality in skill, an undeniable good, to
> inequality in value, an undeniable evil.
>
> And its not bounded by static nationalist borders. Poor countries are 
> lesser
> value, their people seen as inherently inferior. Cultures where there is 
> no
> wealth are deemed ipso facto totally and absolutely inferior. Money 
> defines
> good, and hence the value of the man.
>
> I think this was part of Pirsig's warning about the success of the west in
> creating power and toys lost in the process any understanding of what it 
> means
> to be a part of the world. We are so fixated on accumulating wealth, and
> thereby asserting our supremeity over others, that we lose sight of the 
> simply
> fact that Arete is not bounded by wealth, or culture, or power. Arete is 
> the
> striving for excellence in one's life. And whether that person is an 
> aboriginal
> tribesman or an American retiree matters not.
>
> Pirsig, in ZMM, translated the Tao te Ching with the word "Quality" for 
> the Tao.
> I do the same with the Eightfold Buddhist Path.
>
> Quality View, Quality Intention, Quality Speech, Quality Action, Quality
> Livelihood, Quality Effort, Quality Mindfulness, Quality Concentration.
>
> These are the things Arete teaches. There is nothing wrong with earning a
> living, from doing what one has to do to live within a culture. But the 
> value
> of the person should be judged by their adherence to (for example) the 
> Quality
> paths above. Or the Greek Arete model. Or Quality as Dharma, as the Tao. 
> And
> nowhere in any of that do I see anything remotely indicating that "wealth"
> bestows "value". Indeed, as SA reminded us recently, in some Indian 
> tribes,
> "poverty" bestows "value". But that poverty only reflects value (in that
> culture) when it comes as the result of helping others. And that is what 
> the
> chief was doing, placing the Good of others above the accumulation of
> possessions.
>
> But now we are right back to "over consumption" and the dogmatic adherence 
> to
> consumerism and materialism (not in the philosophic sense). In this view, 
> man
> can do no greater thing than enrich the amount of his possessions, either 
> raw
> money or the objects it affords. And that brings us right back to the
> mercantilistic worldview that this accumulation bestows value and 
> superiority
> on the individual, the nation, and the culture. In Lila, Pirsig jokes 
> about the
> utter aghastness that would be met with a "poor" person actually having 
> the
> audacity to knock on the door of the "rich". We are moving back in that
> direction, as Pirsig says in Lila, back to Victorianism, where man is 
> measured
> by social success and the poor are despicable little creatures to be 
> avoided.
> It'll soon be 1890  all over again.
>
> Only good, I suppose, is that we'll get a new Mark Twain. God knows we 
> need
> one...
>
> Arlo
>
>
> 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/
>