In a message dated 6/16/02 2:56:51 PM GMT Daylight Time, pholden@sc.rr.com
writes:
> Hi Elliot:
>
> You asked:
>
> > so what? sorry, but why is having a growing economy nessicarily the best?
>
>
> Pirsig answers:
>
> "Their idea that quality is some sort of vapid, romantic, ethereal illusion
>
> may be dispelled in part by a discussion of plain old money which, in
> the MOQ, is a pure and simple index of social quality."
>
> Letter to Bodvar Skutvik, 9/15/200
>
> Platt
>
Hi Platt,
A discussion of money may involve its social value.
If so, then we may indicate the reality of social values, which may be
Pirsig's point in your quote?
That money has social value is not being challenged in recent postings. What
is being challenged is an absolute measure of social value in terms of money?
There are societies with no money that have high social values too.
You have still yet to address the equating of material wealth with quality.
I do not feel you can.
Material quality is material quality.
One's relationship to material quality may provide an index for social
quality? Shared material quality is better than exclusive material quality,
otherwise material quality is just material quality not being shared - and
there is no relationship there is there?!
All the best,
Squonk.
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 - 16:02:19 BST