[MD] From each... to each

[Arlo Bensinger]

Hi again Marsha,

I certainly can imagine a "new, higher quality social system". I am 
reminded of Pirsig's "You want to know how to paint a perfect painting? 
It's easy. Make yourself perfect and then just paint naturally." When the 
old SOMist foundations give way, when people see with MOQ goggles (as it 
were), a newer, higher quality social system would be unpreventable.

Your suggestion of "nourishing ability" also strikes a strong chord. And 
one that forces us to get at some of the underpinnings of the current 
national dialogue. A few posts ago, even the merest mention on my part of 
anything being done to encourage/support the "poor" was met with the 
typical fear-ad hominem of the party that relies on the "poor" being seen 
as "lazy, slothful, stupid". There is ample evidence, for example, that 
socio-economic class is more a function of birth than ability. Those who 
are born into any particular "class" (rich, middle, poor) nearly always end 
up dying there. There are exceptions, to be sure, but these are the 
exceptions that prove the rule.

Knowing this, knowing that socio-economic "status" is not a function 
entirely of ability, but rather more so one of class birth, it makes sense 
to calibrate the system to maximize affordances for those who, through NO 
fault of their own ability, are structured against attaining the same 
economic comfort as those born into higher soci-economic gradations. My 
suggestion, for example, to eliminate taxes altogether of homes, cars and 
other necessities on the lowest 5% valued in the local market, is simply 
making a knowing nod to the fact that "property ownership" is not based on 
"what we do" but "where we are born" (economically). My social gift, of 
being born to a socio-economic strata where inherited wealth and 
educational opportunity provided ease of access to purchase property I 
recognize by supporting a system that nourishes for those without such a 
birthrite SOME modest ability to live decently in a way *I* define decently 
(owning your own home, for example).

In other words, although I recognize MY role in my abilities and my labor 
and my effort, I also recognize the role of society. This is something that 
is wholly in opposition the forced (and illusionary) dichotomy that says 
the only two options are one OR the other. Capitalism (as practiced) tells 
us it is entirely MY role (or lack thereof), while communism (as practiced) 
tells us that it is entirely SOCIETY'S role. In short, as you say, both are 
corrupt. And (in capitalism's case) this corruption is driven by power, 
guided by the language that tells us that our worth is derived from 
economic success, a language that urges consumption to fuel the "worth" of 
the capistocracy.

At any rate, I hope I did not seem to imply you favored anything less than 
a new system. In the Indian thread I had hoped to pursue a "hybridity", a 
"way out" of the dichotomy offered us by examination of the politics of 
George Orwell and the "freedoms" Pirsig wrote of with the Indian. As Pirsig 
said, we are drifting backwards towards Victorianism (and in the case of 
some, being actively pushed), and their must be another solution. "Only 
birth can conquer death", as Campbell wrote.

Arlo