[MD] What all is about.

[ian glendinning]

Hi Arlo, I saw your point .... I just wasn't looking for another fight
with Platt ... (I was pretending not to notice he'd returned to the
fray)

I just pointed out on another forum that we culturally mistake liberal
freedoms with free markets, and forget that liberty comes with
responsibilities, and they involve values other than those
conveniently "accounted for" by the market - fame and fortune.

Waldorf & Stadler ... I like it.
Ian

On 11/9/07, Arlo Bensinger <ajb102 at psu.edu> wrote:
> [Ian]
> I was just reacting to Ham's stereotypical caricature of "scientists"
> getting in the way ...
>
> [Arlo]
> I'm with you, Ian, mate. But I'd venture to guess the only scientists
> Ham sees as "selling out" are those that favor some liberal
> conspiracy or another. Just as I'd bet the only "artists" Platt sees
> as pandering to fame are those that rifle Victorian sensibilities of
> "decency". From there it is an inevitable dissolution into another
> Waldorf and Statler routine about the "good ol' days".
>
> But the underlying issue, they both touch on, is profound, and it is
> the core of ZMM's thesis. The fundamental problem facing our culture
> is not "punk rock" or "modern art" or "celebrity scientists", but the
> underlying S/O foundation that has cut Quality out of the dialogue.
> When Pirsig laments the transition from the mechanic-artist of his
> younger days, to the uninvolved mechanic-by-label-only of the (then)
> modern garage, he ascribes this to a collapse of "care", which he has
> said is a direct correlate of Quality. This alienation-from-Quality,
> witnessed throughout ZMM not only in labor but in all daily activity,
> is not only the root cause of the "scientist" or "artist" who sells
> out for celebrity and wealth, but more importantly for why as a
> society we have elevated celebrity and wealth to be the paramount
> ends-in-themselves of activity. In this sense, Arete is conflated
> with social-material success. This underscores the social darwinism
> of modern parlance. It is why we celebrify businessmen and heap
> riches on actors and musicians. It is why thugs sell platinum
> records, scientists sell their signatures to pharmaceuticals and
> politicians, and toys made with toxic chemicals end up in the hands
> of our children.
>
> We no longer ask, "what is good and what is not good?". We ask only,
> "what will make us rich or famous, and what will not?"
>
> And we mistakenly see the questions as synonymous.
>
> Personally, like Pirsig I think, I see more to be gained by getting
> the mechanic to see the art in her/his work, to recapture his
> intellectual-aesthetic relationship with her/his labor, but the same
> metaphysical shift that would allow this, would also reorient the
> vision of the "scientist" and "artist" (as professional labels, not
> labels of activity**) towards this same end. By saying "there is
> something better than this, and that is found by looking towards the
> knowledge, wisdom and art we produce and not the material successes
> of celebrity and wealth".
>
> ** I make that distinction, here, because I would venture that a true
> reading of ZMM would dissolve the notions of "scientist" and "artist"
> (as Platt had suggested), and also incorporate their essence into all
> labor. In this true ZMM sense, the mechanic _IS_ a scientist-artist,
> as is the plumber, the painter, and the candlestick maker. (For an
> interesting account of the Everyman-as-Scientist, check out the
> People's History of Science).
>
>
> 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/
>