[MD] Dynamic Development at all costs?

[pholden at davtv.com]

Quoting Magnus Berg <McMagnus at home.se>:

> Hi again
> 
> Platt Holden wrote:
> > Hi Magnus, 
> >  
> >> pholden at davtv.com wrote:
> >>> I beg to differ I have always agreed with Pirsig that individuals are
> >>> combinations of all four levels plus the ability to respond to DQ. I also
> >>> agree with Pirisg when he writes: "Second, there were moral codes that
> >>> established the supremacy of the social order over biological
> >>> life—conventional morals —proscriptions against drugs, murder, adultery,
> >>> theft and the like." (Lila, 13). So I fail to understand your criticism. 
> >> But those two quotes are somewhat contradictory, don't you see that? 
> >> Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Pirsig realize this later, and then
> >> excused himself (and the MoQ) by saying that the MoQ is just a superficially
> >> constructed system made to try to understand human interaction better. Or in
> >> other terms, he seems to have given up on the MoQ being a complete and sound
> >> metaphysics, whereas I have tried to refine it to fix contradictions like
> >> that.
> > 
> > Sorry. I don't follow you. Can you be more specific about Pirsig giving up 
> > on the MOQ?
> 
> I didn't say "give up on the MoQ", read again.

" . . . he seems to have given up on the MoQ being a complete and sound
metaphysics . . ."

> >> metaphysics,> 
> In the Paul Turner letter 
> (http://www.moq.org/forum/Pirsig/LetterFromRMPSept2003.html) he tries to 
> put arbitrary limits to the levels according to their "usefulness" 
> whatever that is.
> 
> I don't consider a resulting system from such level definitions a 
> metaphysics, it's rather a lack of definitions. This is one of the 
> reasons I started the "What is a metaphysics to you" thread.

Is this an answer to something?

> >> So, we have:
> >>
> >> 1. Individuals are combinations of all four levels plus the ability to
> >> respond to DQ. (I can agree with that, but it's *not* this "ability to
> >> respond to DQ" that gives us our mind, sets us apart from the animals or
> >> whatever. Everything responds to DQ. That's implied in the Q->DQ/SQ split.)
> >>
> >> 2. Social patterns are morally obliged to rule over biological patterns.
> >>
> >> Now, this "free market" is a social pattern, regardless of whether you dare
> >> to agree to it or not. And when you say you want the free market to reign,
> >> you are degrading all participants of that free market, including yourself,
> >> to biological patterns. That's 2 above.
> > 
> > Sorry, I don't follow you. I agree the free market is a social pattern as 
> > are all markets. Markets are where individuals by and sell products and 
> > services in an effort to defeat the forces of biology which include among 
> > other things, hunger. 
> 
> Yes. What was it you didn't follow?

That I degrade participants in the free market to biological patterns. 

> >> But minutes later, when it suits you, you want to change into 1 above 
> >> and be an intellectual, free person, who *don't* want to be governed by any
> >> social patterns.
> > 
> > But, don't you see there's a big difference between a social pattern that 
> > promotes freedom necessary for full functioning of intellect vs. a social 
> > pattern like socialism that smothers freedom?
> 
> Now, you're getting into politics and I try to stay away from that here 
> as much as possible, but one could for example argue that communism 
> promotes full functioning of intellect by removing the need to waste 
> intellectual effort on social value like money. Then socialism would 
> smother that freedom by forcing you to waste some of your intellectual 
> capacity to survive.
> 
> Or did you mean something else? :)

So in your opinion the MOQ could be used to justify communism? 




-------------------------------------------------
This mail sent through IMP: http://horde.org/imp/