[MD] Shouldn?t we be, like, revolting ?

[Platt Holden]

Hi Bo, 

I agree with all you have written here. Thanks. 

Platt


> 4 Oct. 
> 
> I had written:
> > > According to Pirsig communism is an intellectual pattern, that much
> > > I remember, but where does he place capitalism (I don't have LILA
> > > here) I don't think at the social?
> 
> Platt
> > The MOQ sanctions the morality of social level capitalism, as
> > explained by the following:
> 
> > "The Metaphysics of Quality says the free market makes everybody
> > richer-by preventing static economic patterns from setting in and
> > stagnating economic growth. That is the reason the major capitalist
> > economies of the world have done so much better since World War II
> > than the major socialist economies. It is not that Victorian social
> > economic patterns are more moral than socialist intellectual economic
> > patterns. Quite the opposite. They are less moral as static patterns
> > go. What makes the free-enterprise system superior is that the
> > socialists, reasoning intelligently and objectively, have
> > inadvertently closed the door to Dynamic Quality in the buying and
> > selling of things. They closed it because the metaphysical structure
> > of their objectivity never told them Dynamic Quality exists." (Lila,
> > 17)
> 
> A little late, but I have hoped for an epiphany as I feel on slippery 
> ground regarding economics and finance (it has not emerged though) 
> Yet I sense some error in the recent cry for state regulations, 
> communism's regulation in the form of 5 year plans with fixed 
> production, prices and wages prevented recessions, but it prevented  
> progess too. Regarding the Q-levels, the discipline "economics" is a 
> scientific study and thus intellect, and speaking of bygone times' 
> economics is intellect looking down from its perch. The Victorian time 
> may have been Q-social in many ways but England had introduced 
> "economics" as a study long ago, Adam Smith wrote his "The Wealth 
> of Nation" already in the sixteenth century. 
> 
> My point is that really ancient times knew no economics, it was just 
> trade and this was a social pattern and will remain so, but along with 
> all social patterns it has come under intellectual control in the form of
> "economics". Medieval times which was a rebounding of the social 
> level had very strong regulations of trade and profession (the Guilds) 
> this not from any idea of promoting "economics", it was the social 
> value of keeping people in the place God had allotted them. And this 
> tendency remained as the class system that lasted till the French 
> Revolution. 
> 
> Pirsig sees both capitalism and communisms as economical systems - 
> and thus intellectual - but the former seems more locked into its static
> intellectual level than the latter and I guess that's a valid assessment.
> Another point is that Pirsig here says that intellect's objectivity has 
> closed the door ...etc. That is exactly it, the 4th. level is the S/O 
> distinction , subjectivity the necessary dark contrast to the light of 
> OBJECTIVITY.  
> 
> And that's my axe as you may know.
> 
> Bo