[MD] Commie Talk and USA bashing?

[Woods Woods]

----- Original Message ----
From: Platt Holden <plattholden at gmail.com>
To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
Sent: Tuesday, October 7, 2008 7:58:13 PM
Subject: Re: [MD] Commie Talk and USA bashing?


> Platt previously:
> Do you think Pirsig understood "real socialism" when he wrote about it in
> Lila?

> woods previously:
>     I see your point, but do you see Pirsig's point?  I thought socialism
> according to what Pirsig wrote was an intellectual pattern and 
> capitalism is a social patten.  



Platt:
I think this was Pirsig's point:
"From a static point of view socialism is more moral than capitalism. It's 
a higher form of evolution. It is an intellectually guided society, not 
just a society that is guided by mindless traditions. That's what gives 
socialism its drive. But what the socialists left out and what has all but 
killed their whole undertaking is an absence of a concept of indefinite 
Dynamic Quality." (Lila, 17)


Platt continues:
I would quibble with Pirsig about capitalism not being intellectually 
guided society because wealth is a product of man's capacity to think.

woods:
    That's what I think Chris is trying to point here.  When one argues using Pirsig's 
quotes they aren't wholly showing their hand.  You can bring up Pirsig's quotes 
but you would need to also show, as you do here, what your view of these quotes are.  
This is important, as we see above, for you don't support Pirsig's point here.  I respect that, 
but you need to be transparent about this, which you were here, above.

Platt:
    Nevertheless, he's right about apologists for the free market having no 
concept of Dynamic Quality.

woods:
   What do you mean here?  I looked up "apologists", but I'm having difficulty 
understanding this sentence.  Sorry, my fault.

Platt:
    But who does? Certainly not Marxists.  


woods:
    Hey, I'm not fully gettin' the Marxist stuff.  I'm not fully gettin' the U.S. free market stuff.  I'm for 
something more moral than the two of these.  I understand the dynamic aspect in this line of 
thinking.  I understand what Chris is trying to say, maybe.  As I asked of him, and hopefully 
he gets back to me on this.  I'm wondering if Chris is arguing against the way the U.S. used 
the free market.  The U.S. killed the free market long ago.  I don't know the history on this, but 
I'm involved in the understanding that the monetary system is not the only way.  Self-reliance anybody...

woods