[MD] Dynamic Development at all costs?

[Magnus Berg]

Hi Platt


>>> 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 . . ."

The keywords being "complete and sounds metaphysics". It seems I will 
elaborate on this in a reply to SA later.

>> 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?

Yes, it was an explanation to what I meant with "complete and sound 
metaphysics". See my next post.

>> Yes. What was it you didn't follow?
> 
> That I degrade participants in the free market to biological patterns. 

Ah, ok. Because you elevate the free market into a "one society to rule 
them all" status, you're also saying that the value of that society, 
i.e. money, is the most important value for everyone in that society. 
Nobody need to care about intellectual values or general quality, only 
money. If anyone tries to advocate the value of an idea, it's only 
judged by its social value, i.e. how much money it can generate. The 
intellectual value of an idea is literally decapitated because the 
social pattern can only see social value. This is immoral.


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

:) As I said to Craig, I'm just trying to see what the MoQ might say 
about different societies we've seen. The particular aspect of communism 
I described above is only one aspect. There are lots of other that need 
to be worked out as well to get a working society. I agree that the 
communist societies we've seen on earth do need some work, but my main 
point by being the (or at least your) devil's advocate is to show which 
aspects of the free market that need to be tweaked to increase its MoQ 
value.

	Magnus