[MD] Imaginings

[plattholden at gmail.com]

Hey Andre,

I hope you will clarify some points for me. 

On 13 Sep 2009 at 1:07, Andre Broersen wrote:

> Platt:
> You see what starts the nonsense -- an accusation. And the accuser
> expects the accused to just roll over and bow to his superior intelligence.
> Well, I say, bull crap. When anyone here is personally attacked he or
> she has every right to respond in kind. To ignore evil is an evil itself,
> especially on a site whose main subject is morality.
> 
> Andre:
> Yes Platt, it is morality we are discussing, but not from an inorganic or
> organic/ social point of view. This is supposedly a forum at a level that
> transcends this sort of stuff!
> Doesn't mean it shouldn't have any connection with these levels but, as the
> cliché goes...this should be above party politics.
> 
> It seems to me that you continue to reduce Pirsig's metaphysics (which is on
> an imaginal/ intellectual wavelength) to a social/ ordinary wavelength. No
> wonder some of us are disturbed by this.
> Pirsig has tried to give us an intellectual/ imaginal tool to guide the
> social level..which is muchly needed. The social level is very, very sick.
> It is a rust belt and you are a representative thereof (I am beginning to
> not feel sorry to say this).

You seem to say that MOQ principles should be used to judge the 
morality of social level patterns. I agree. In Lila, Pirsig makes it clear 
that free market capitalism is morally superior to socialism because it is 
more Dynamic. Pirsig's reasoning is well covered in Chapter 17 of Lila, 
so no need to repeat it here. If the social level is very, very sick as you 
say, the reason seems to be from an MOQ viewpoint because of those 
who represent the static patterns of socialism are in charge (liberals on 
both sides of the aisle) rather than representatives of dynamic free 
markets (conservatives). 

> Now look at this following contradiction in your argument:
> In Holland, a company has been able to provide, through its strengt in the
> market position (a strength gained through tough competition) a free
> internet service to schools. Now, a European authority says that this is not
> on!! It is taking unfair advantage out of its (through blood, sweat and
> tears gained) market position. It should charge a fee!!! and leave this open
> to other (potential) providers to offer the service at a cheaper fee...and
> compete!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> 
> Can you understand the logic of this??? (Platt would love this but I ask:

Not sure what your point is. If a free enterprise company chooses to 
offer free internet service to schools by what moral authority does a 
government body step in to prevent it?  

> What are we on about???
> 
> Are we after Quality/GOOD (which I would imagine a free internet provision
> to schools is)  or what??
> 
> The free market logic is, of course, that we should compete eachother to
> death ( DQ right??!!) and that the 'ordinary person' ( in this example
> school children) caught in the middle should just suffer the whole bit.
> 
> According to your standards, is the provision of a free internet service, to
> schools a good thing or not?

I don't know all the details but I would say it is good thing because it is 
provided as a gift by a private company, just as it was good of Bill Gates 
to bring innovations in health and learning to the world through his 
charitable foundation.    

> If so, do we have a right to 'free' health care or not? As I heard one
> friggin' Dutch politician say to that: we do live at a level of civilisation
> that values the quality of health of its citizens. It is a basic right which
> we will not interfere with... .
> (Just to clarify: we do pay for this in our taxes...each and everyone of us)

There is no right to free health care just as they is no right to free 
internet access. But if someone offers to voluntarily pay for your health 
insurance premiums or your internet cable bill, that's fine by me. 

> Are we trying to establish some sort of intellectual foundation for GOOD  or
> will we let dialectics and rhetoric lose on eachother...again?

I would say the former. Isn't that what a lot of our discussion is about?

> It's  probably worth nothing.

Different viewpoints offered in a civilized manner are worth everything. 

Regards,
Platt