Dear Platt,
Feel free to butt into any of my posts addressed to anyone, but
don't expect quick or long (often even: any) answers from me.
Your 10/1 10:14 -0500 post helps me to clarify my 9/1 23:18 +0100
post:
You state that my position is based on the assumption that
society today is global society and that social status determines
one's happiness. I didn't mean that society is ONLY global and
that happiness is ONLY valued (not determined) by social status.
My main point was about the RELEVANT scale to evaluate relative
performance of alternative social patterns of value.
Happiness only appeared in a subordinate clause and the relation
between happiness and social status is not essential for my
argument.
Roger chose social quality as a criterion for performance. I took
Pirsig's association of social quality with social status and
confronted that with Roger's automatic equation of social quality
with wealth.
By the way, wealth being a poor predictor of happiness is only to
be expected from my point of view. I would not associate
(measurable) absolute wealth with happiness but relative wealth,
wealth relative to those we compare ourselves with.
With friendly greetings,
Wim
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:01:46 BST