[MD] Protestant Capitalism

[Ham Priday]

John and WillBlake [Platt mentioned] --


[John]:
> Hey Ham, actually I remember this thread starting as an inquiry
> into the values behind Capitalism, not as condemnation, but inquiry.
>
> For so long, America used the term "godless communism" to make
> a certain point about "our" capitalist moral superiority.  'Twas my
> observation that Capitalism was based upon a certain moral system
> which has actually been undermined by the values-relativity of the
> last six decades.  When the foundation of your society is undermined,
> your society crumbles.  Thus the doom of capitalism.
>
> Since bringing the subject up, I have payed most attention to Platt's
> arguments for Capitalism as the most dynamic of systems and I have
> decided that while he is most certainly correct, there is a larger point
> he is missing which is that sometimes your biggest success breeds
> your biggest, catastrophic failure.

I can see you are itching to discuss politics, John.  So is WillBlake, who 
joined the MD a few months before you came on board.

[WillBlake]:
> I agree that the current phase in Western thought is either
> that matter and mind are the same thing, or that mind does not
> exist. I know differently.
> I know that you don't talk politics, but the current political phase
> believes that even if self exists, it needs a lot of direction in doing
> so.  Baa, Baa.

Both of you write well, have an open mind toward the MoQ, and seem to favor 
laissez-faire Capitalism (a rare combination of virtues in this forum.) 
What are the chances of getting you and WillBlake together in a discussion 
of Conservative Values?  Since Platt and I are regarded as right-wing 
"extremists", the four of us could take on the leftist-liberal majority in a 
productive debate.  Until that happens I have little incentive to jeopardize 
my already tenuous philosophical position here by arguing politics with the 
antagonists.

For now, though, back to the MoQ's morality...

[Ham, previously]:
> Notwithstanding Pirsig's emphasis on Value, am I the only
> one who finds this scenario cold, unyielding, and inhuman?

[John]:
> I don't see what's wrong with betterness.  I don't find it cold,
> unyielding or inhuman.  I find it comforting beyond measure.
> If my life cannot attach to betterness, then it is worthless.
> If this betterness isn't outside myself, then it disappears when
> I die.  That is cold.

Nothing is wrong with betterness, except that it represents something 
different for each of us.  Pirsig talks about betterness as if it's a 
universal property that everybody agrees on.  But when applied to morality, 
which is the author's usual reference, this just isn't true.  For example, 
to the liberal socialist "betterness" means having a bigger, more caring 
government.  For the conservative it means having more freedom with less 
government intervention.  To the Jihadist it means destroying the infidels 
and establishing an Islamic world order.

There's no "inside" or "outside" to betterness because it's a Value.  Values 
are proprietary to the individual and are reflected in the social morality 
of like-minded people.  This is the trap Pirsig fell into by using a banket 
term like "better" to connote universal goodness.  One man's "goodness" may 
be his neighbor's "evil".  A Bruckner symphony may be sheer beauty for a 
lover of the classics but tediously boring to a jazz musician.  Just as all 
individuals are different, so is their sense of value.  That's the 
relational nature of the world we live in.

As I explained in a post to Marsha yesterday, "Difference is necessary for 
the realization of value -- not only difference in terms of what is 
perceived, but difference in the 'agency' of perception."  No two worldviews 
are valuistically identical.  We come into existence as differentiated 
beings so that we may realize value in an infinite range of perspectives.

Regrettably, this point is missed in the MoQ because, although the author 
makes a formidable case for Value in our lives, he has defined it as a 
universal principle instead of as subjective sensibility.

Sorry for this long-winded comment, but it's a critical concept in my 
philosophy of Essence.

Best regards,
Ham


> Being a woodcutter, I offer the analogy of the forest.  Let us postulate
> capitalism as a tree-growing enterprise.  We'll offer it in competition to
> all other tree-growing enterprises on the planet and let us assume that it
> grows the most trees.  Way more and way faster than socialism.
>
> Lots of trees.  Close fitting, cramped in together and utterly 
> "successful"
> forestry, that unfortunately produces the most fragile, fire-prone forest
> around.
>
> Quality isn't measured that way, or cancer would be a high-quality state 
> of
> affairs.
>
> [Ham]
>>
>> Actually, I see no reason to tie Capitalism to a religious denomination 
>> at
>> all.  The fact that many "right-wing" capitalists happen to be Protestant
>> doesn't mean that there are no Catholic, Jewish, MOQist or non-theistic
>> capitalists.  Milton Friedman (a Jew) was a follower of the Von Mises 
>> school
>> of economics, a capitalist-based ideology.  Jonah Goldberg (Jewish) and 
>> Newt
>> Gingrich (Catholic) are arguably today's best spokesmen for conservative
>> capitalism.  So why the Protestant twist?
>>
>
> [John]
>
> Historical reasons mainly.  The founding fathers and all that.
> Protestantism was more then than it is now.  Then it formed men and ideas
> in a way that's degraded since.  One interesting way of looking at it is
> comparing the protestant new world as founded by english religious
> dissidents and the catholic new world founded by the spanish.  South 
> America
> had more of the advantages in resources and climate.  Why such a disparity
> then in how the two societys ended up?
>
>
> [Ham]
>
>> Rather than dismiss the intellect of academia, I think we could all 
>> profit
>> by standing back from the hierarchy and taking a look at where it has 
>> gotten
>> us.
>>
>> What I see from the descriptions proffered is a set of mechanical
>> cogwheels, like the gears in a 4-speed transmission system, running from 
>> the
>> largest (Inorganic) to the smallest (Intellectual ), with Biological and
>> Social filling in the gap.  Evolution starts by driving the largest wheel 
>> at
>> the slowest speed.  After our vehicle has overcome inertia and is 
>> proceeding
>> at a constant rate, it shifts into second gear and begins to develop life
>> forms at a more rapid pace.  Another shift engages the 3rd evolutionary
>> wheel and Man emerges on the scene.  Finally, as we near the breakneck 
>> speed
>> of civilization, evolution shifts to 4th gear and Intellect drives 
>> mankind
>> to enlightnment, changing his perspective of the world ever after.
>>
>
> [John]
>
> I see your point.  It's something that has bugged me a bit also, but from 
> a
> different perspective.  I see that analogy as too anthropocentric.  But I
> don't think it's truly in the MoQ.  I think it's a hang up we humans get
> that gets attached to the MoQ when we try and explain it.
>
> Hmmm... that sounds kind of nebulous, even to me.  Let's just say that the
> MoQ itself, like any system, is vulnerable to static latching which 
> degrades
> thought.
>
>
> [Ham]
>
>> To use another anology, all of the pins in a turnkey lock have to engage 
>> in
>> a specific order so we can open the door to reality.  The point I'm 
>> crudely
>> trying to illustrate is that, according to Mr. Pirsig, this whole 
>> unfolding
>> of the universe is an automatic process whose consequences.are 
>> indifferent
>> to man, his thoughts, values and aspirations.  No matter how poetic your
>> description of the MoQ hierachy, it's a mechanistic paradigm that runs 
>> its
>> predetermined course inexorably toward cosmic "betterness", with or 
>> without
>> man's participation.  Notwithstanding Pirsig's emphasis on Value, am I 
>> the
>> only one who finds this scenario cold, unyielding, and inhuman?
>>
>> Thanks for hearing me out.
>
> [John]