[MD] Problems with Intellectual control of Society

[John Carl]

Ham,

This is the first time I've seen your comment and wish to reply to it:

On Sat, Oct 10, 2009 at 3:18 PM, Ham Priday <hampday1 at verizon.net> wrote:

 Frankly, I don't view capitalism, which responds to changing marketing
needs and uses the profit motive to encourage individual creativity, as a
"fixed system".

The accumulation of Capital, especially in the formation of giant
corporations that aren't really limited by the old school methods of Adam
Smith's recollection (rich successful dad dies and leaves fortune to wastrel
children) has a power that is amplified by technological innovation.


 But whether civilized society is a "static S/O intellect system" or a "DQ
system", such terms are irrelevant --so long as it works.  When it doesn't
work, society historically has identified the factors responsible and taken
rational steps to correct them.


What concerns me and others, is that in this case the giant has gotten too
big to safely tumble back to earth.  Exponential growth in a limited matrix
can't go on for long.



> In my reading on social evolution, I have never seen "static" referred to
> as a corrupting factor or making society "more dynamic" cited as a remedy
> for disaster.


And my response is, so?  Do better reading.

Actually, I've been addressing this but I think in another, unsent response.
 But the fact that you're referring to it makes me guess that maybe I did
send it... sometimes its hard to tell.

here:

Platt,


> Platt;
> The problem is, as Pirsig explains, socialism's static pattern that tends
> to ignore and/or smother DQ.


I agree:  the reason socialism stifles  DQ is that the aim of easing
suffering is not the same as the aim at what is good.

It is  fear and suffering, in the aggregate,  which drives humanity onward,
without suffering, there is no evolution.  Needleman refers to Ouspensky's
illustration of the ant and bees as patterns of evolution that went
stagnant, stopped.  They are perfectly organized - socially, but have no
intellectual development at all.  We humans have, as one of our choices, the
option to follow the ants and the bees - that is, perfect social
organization with just the right resources for all and the breeding
carefully regulated.  It'd be easy.  And is that not near the Christian
definition of Heaven?  Already you can see the values transferal, with the
church having a great deal to say about procreation and sharing.


However Platt,  what we have today is nothing near pure Capitalism, and the
amalgamation cannot be defended on any classic static grounds.  It is a new
thing evolved.   Communism failed because the people suffered more under
"compassionate socialism" than they did, or do, under laissez faire
capitalism.  On a materialistic values system then, capitalism wins.
Everybody knows.

 Is DQ bequeathed to the fattest?  Is it a measure of mean horsepower per
citizen, or what?   The cessation of suffering in American Politics is just
as stifling, and with the way things have evolved, even more so.  With the
corporate systems of thought control in place now, far beyond criticism or
influence, it seems incredible to visualize any kind of cohesive
counterbalance that would replace, non destructively, what is.

In better words, the giant has gotten too big for his britches.  He needs to
die, but when he falls, he wrecks it all.  So we have to prop him up in fear
and loathing.  groaning.

It's probably an old tale.  Empires rise, empires fall.  There is something
compelling about history when its happening right in front of you.



>  Nor have I seen anything in Pirsig's writings that would support the view
> that "capitalism promotes DQ."   Perhaps you or someone else here can
> explain to me exactly what "intellectual control of society" means to the
> average Pirsigian and how it differs from the application of analysis and
> reason (i.e., intellect) to solve social problems.
>
> Thanks for your help,
>
> Ham
>


Your welcome