[MD] Mao & The MoQ

[Ham Priday]

Hi Bo --

On 2/13/10 at 1:32 PM, you wrote:


> I called Mark and John "an one-eyed leading a blind",
> but you and Mark beats my supply of "lost" metaphors.
> Mark speaking about "drive for the supremacy of intellect"
> not having the faintest idea what the intellectual Q-level
> means and you chiming in with your notorious criticism
> of the MOQ.  However your attacks are from an open
> opposition and ten times better than the alleged supporters'
> misguided tangle.

I'm not sure what you mean by "an open opposition".  Yes, I'm critical of 
certain tenets of the MoQ, specifically the rejection of the subjective self 
and the positing of Quality as a universal principle independent of man. 
However, I would really like to see this epistemology reworked, as I believe 
understanding Quality (Value) as human sensibility and Intellect as 
conscious reasoning would redeem Pirsig's theory and offer more meaning to 
guide his followers.

> Capitalism, socialism,  fascism, nazism ....etc. All "isms" are
> intellectual (read SOM) terms for political trends. From the
> MOQ seen the first two matches Q-intellect where "economy"
> has been isolated and made an object for study, eventually
> to be improved by some program. Fascism and nazism on the
> other hand matches social value in the sense of not having any
> "nomi" or "logi" as their goal, rather to bring existence
> (in this case Italy and Germany) away from modernity back
> to some ideal past. (for Italy the Roman and for Germany
> some "übermenschlisches" mythological past.

I generally avoid discussing politics in this forum, unless it relates in 
some way to philosophy.  In the present discussion, Pirsig's claim that 
socialism is "more moral and intellectual than capitalism" has surfaced, 
which has a direct bearing on his philosophy.  For me, the most 
intellectually conceived political document in history is the U.S. 
Constitution which was designed to ensure individual freedom and the rewards 
of productivity by limiting the power of government in the private sector. 
It saddens me that our federal bureaucrats have taken it upon themselves to 
ignore the Founders' philosophy of human liberty and replace our free 
enterprise system with a government-controlled socialist state.

You say above that "all '-isms' are intellectual terms."  Although it is 
true that the labels Capitalism, Socialism, Communism, and Fascism represent 
our intellectual understanding of these forms of governance, this does not 
mean that any one of them is "more intellectual" than any other in practice. 
And while the redistribution of wealth, for example, may be seen by some as 
a "fairer" policy than allowing citizens to earn their way to prosperity, is 
artificial equality "more moral" than the free enterprise it discourages? 
By what standard is penalizing the wealth producers in order to reward the 
non-productive an intellectual concept?

No one is arguing that we should return to feudalism or a communal society. 
But why destroy the free republic whose constitutional laws enabled America 
to achieve the world's most powerful market economy and the highest standard 
of living for its citizens in two short centuries?  Socialism has never 
worked, except perhaps as a means of nationalizing industry for purposes of 
war.  I'm convinced that, left to the liberal politicians in Washington, 
egalitarianism and political correctness in the name of "fairness" will yet 
be the death of us.

There!  I've said my piece on the philosophy of government, and I expect the 
usual attacks from the collectivists here.

> Your essay you can stuff, with the most friendliest greetings
> from Bodvar.

I won't stuff this week's excellent piece by Jack Swift.  But I will add it 
to my Values Page archive, thank you.

Cheers,
Ham