[MD] The relativity of the MoQ

[plattholden at gmail.com]

On 5 Sep 2009 at 13:49, Andre Broersen wrote:

> [Platt]
> Sounds like a pipe dream to me and to Pirsig: "The ideal of a
> harmonious society in which everyone without coercion cooperates
> happily with everyone else for the mutual good of all is a devastating
> fiction." (Lila, 24)
> 
> John:
> Well if not Buddhist monks, maybe Dharma Bums.   But you raise good
> questions.  How does one go about crafting a proper society when the one
> you're in is failing?  Usually when the ship sinks, you head for the life
> boats, not the drawing board.  But purely as an intellectual exercise, it's
> a fair question.
> 
> Hi Platt and John,
> I am not pretending to know the panacea to society's ills other than
> following Pirsig's suggestion of the head, heart and hands stuff.
> The notion that: "The ideal of a harmonious society in which everyone
> without coercion cooperates happily with everyone else for the mutual good
> of all is a devastating fiction." (Lila, 24) points me to some sort of
> intellectual/visionary level, commonly called government, as a highly
> necessary one.

No doubt government is necessary. But never forget that the essential 
nature of government is coercion by physical force.  

> You have elected a person with a vision who is asked to operate under very
> difficult circumstances, having been handed a Bush legacy of the worst, rock
> bottom quality imaginable.

A matter of opinion. The Carter legacy was a lot worse, not to mention 
FDR. 

> But Platt doesn't even want to give it a chance. Everything is condemned
> even before Obama says anything...reducing any activity aimed at social
> improvement as socialist...and therefore to be condemmed,regardless of its
> quality. The 'drawingboard' you write about John is something Platt rejects
> out of hand (everything is honkydory and wonderful in the US of A under the
> Republicans and through the Republicans and with the Republicans).

No, not Republican. Conservative. And change doesn't mean better.  

> As Pirsig suggests in Lila somewhere (that) the strength of the American
> Government is that if its policies are seen to not to work that these
> can/should and will be changed..try something else(.under the Democrats I
> think). The Republicans put their blinkers on and push the continuation of
> static patterns (as they relate to individuals) regardless of the
> social consequences.

How's hope and change working out? Not so good I'd say.  

> I know I am cutting many corners here but the Pirsig quote used 
> seems to me
> to be pointing to the need for a solid form of government leadership with
> VISION...something that has been lacking overhere (Europe) as well for many
> decades.

Sounds good, but what does it mean? If we follow Pirsig's advice it 
means no more "big programs full of social planning for big masses of 
people." I agree. 
 
> This may be a nice start and then you can begin by changing the education
> system.

That's for sure. It's been under left-wing control in the U.S. since the 60's 
and an utter disaster. It's been ruined by multiculturism, diversity, anti-
US propaganda and other liberal shibboleths. What's needed is 
education vouchers so parents can choose schools for their children. 

Regards,
Platt