[MD] Protestant Capitalism

[Ham Priday]

Greetings, John -- 



> Itching to discuss politics?  Well I wouldn't have characterized
> myself that way.  I do see myself itching to discuss values in the
> political realm.

Good.  I'll bear that in mind.

> The only person I've found so far that I could be interested
> in joining in a cabal is Marsha.  She's fed up with the back-
> and-forth-going-nowhere and wants something NEW.  Me too.
> I would like to see a Politics of Quality. How about a new party
> called "People of Quality".  PoQ, either way.  We wouldn't
> care about left or right, we'd care about best.
>
> That I'd join.

Marsha is a poet, artist, and devotee of New Age philosophy.  There's 
nothing wrong with eclecticism, except that in our search for something 
different we tend to grab onto the latest fad.  A philosophy of Quality (I 
prefer Value) is fundamental, and RMP has provided a rationale that can make 
it a lasting legacy.  Unfortunately, the MoQ is flawed by the notion that 
Quality (Value) exists independently of a cognizant observer, and by the 
omission of a primary source.  My efforts to correct these flaws have thus 
far met with acrimony and resentment, which is why I'm interested in 
reaching "open-minded" people before they become indoctrinated to the 
"official line".

I can't say I'm excited by the "People of Quality" motto which reminds me of 
the People's Party of Mao Tse-tung.  Besides, unlike Marsha, I don't believe 
people ARE Quality.  They are only drawn to it by sensibility.  I've always 
liked Valuism as a title for a new philosophy.  The term isn't in the 
dictionary but has been used by philosophers and estheticians to describe 
human value-sensibility.  It might interest you to review the anonymous 
essay on valuism at http://www.indval.org/IV.htm and compare it with 
Pirsig's moralism.  It's a novel concept of individualism presented clearly 
and to the point, and is quite compatible (I think) with both the MoQ and 
Essentialism.  Let me know what you think.

[Ham]:
> 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. ... One man's "goodness"
> may be his neighbor's "evil". ... Just as all individuals are different,
> so is their sense of value.  That's the relational nature of the world
> we live in.

 [John]:
> Aha.  THAT is why you call your philosophy tenuous.  If values
> are the property of individuals then they are transitory, unreal and
> fade away when the individual dies.  The only way they can persist
> is by individuals converting as many as possible to be like-minded.
> Which explains the urge to form cabals and browbeat one another
> into submission.

You've misconstrued my philosophy, John.  Values aren't "the property of 
individuals", they are our realization of a "greatness" beyond 
individuality.  We are designed as value-sensible creatures so that our 
aspirations and concepts can transcend the limitations of differentiated 
existence.  Actually, Mr, Pirsig is expressing much the same idea, only he 
dismisses the subjective sensibility that completes the principle.  I'm not 
out to "convert" anyone.  A cabal wouldn't work anyway, since value 
realization is intrinsic to the individual and is different for each of us.

> You don't find the arguments against SOM compelling?  Oh my.
> You must be a heretic then.

So I'm told.

> Nevertheless, People of Quality appreciate diversity of opinion.
> Even if it's wrong. ;)

Perhaps the uniqueness of my "diverse opinion" compensates for my heresy 
:-).
Anyway, I'm pleased that quality people like you appreciate it.

Thanks, John, and Happy Memorial Day weekend.

Essentially yours,
Ham