[MD] Science - Delusions in Search of Theory

[Platt Holden]

On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 11:14 AM, Andre Broersen <andrebroersen at gmail.com>wrote:

> Platt to Andre:
>
>
> No, you are intellectually dishonest. You ignore his conclusion and are
> still in denial that the free market is "superior" to socialism.
>
> Andre:
> Pirsig is talking about the WORKINGS of the free market system as making it
> superior to those of the socialists Platt. It works better because it is a
> 'Dynamic institution' (the vocabulary of which had eluded the conservatives
> as well as the socialists...remember?). This dynamic institution, Pirsig
> argues, is part and parcel of Victorian SOCIAL economic patterns as distinct
> from socialist INTELLECTUAL economic patterns.
>

Platt
I'll take the superiority of what works to what is superior in theory any
day. ..


>
> From the MOQ perspective, Pirsig reasons that, as far as static patterns
> go, Victorian social economic patterns are MORALLY INFERIOR to socialist
> intellectual economic patterns. Within the MOQ this reasoning needs no
> further explanation.
>
> But hereby the conclusion you so vehemently defend is not reached yet. And
> I know this has been suggested to you in the past but I'll give it another
> go.
>
> 'Any static mechanism that is open to Dynamic Quality (in this case we are
> referring to the free market system) must also be open to degeneracy-to
> falling back to lower forms of quality'(LILA,p227)
> Pirsig's observations on these (with regards to New York, in LILA) speak
> for themselves.
>

Platt
Agree. The possibility of degeneracy is the price paid for openness to DQ
just as inequality of outcomes is the price paid for individual freedom.


>
> And here we move toward an MOQ 'conclusion' (which is always provisional):
>
> The trick is 'to obtain static and Dynamic Quality SIMULTANEOUSLY' (p,226,
> Pirsig's emphasis)
>
> So from a MOQ point of view (i.e. not from a capitalist or a socialist
> point of view) it would seem that the solution lies in a combination of some
> of the two. Finding the mechanisms by which a balanced society grows and
> does not degenerate. But, as Pirsig says, these are difficult, if not
> impossible to define.
>

Platt
Since such balance is impossible to define, I would choose the system which
is more open to DQ -- the free market -- and take my chances with ending up
among the degenerate.

>
> Attempts in both the East and West are well on their way. To give China as
> an example, this has, slowly but surely introduced what may be termed an
> 'intellectually guided market economy/ free enterprise system'. In the West
> I can think of worker cooperatives, worker participation schemes, non-profit
> or profit sharing businesses etc etc.
>
> I do not need to remind you Platt, which world power has emerged first and
> strongest, out of the bursting of the Western (US) financial bubble, despite
> Chinese (intellectual) warnings as early as 1998 and again in 2002 to top US
> financial advisers and bankers (from a talk show on CCTV9).
>
> Platt
I'm surprised you cite China as an admired  economic system. It looks
spectacular on the surface, but anyone who witnessed the recent Olympic
Games there must have been sickened by the spectacle of human drones
performing in perfect unison. You see the same awful treatment of  people as
cogs in a giant machine during government sponsored celebrations in North
Korea, not to mention in Cuba, Red Square and Nazi Germany. Thanks, but no
thanks.


> Platt:
> Mutual understanding doesn't mean mutual agreement as you seem to think...
>
> Andre:
> The path towards...hopefully. But with you one can never tell.


Platt
If I fail to make myself clear, please let me know and I'll try to clarify.


>
>
>
>
>
>