Hi Squonk:
>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.
Outside of monasteries I can't think offhand of any societies with no
money that have high social values. Can you enlighten me with some
examples?
> 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?!
Please explain further what you mean by relationship to material quality
providing an index for social quality. Money is a "relationship" medium
is it not?
As for equating material wealth with quality I think it depends on
circumstances one finds himself in. A material glass of water if I'm dying
of thirst in the desert has very high quality for me indeed. If I were a
billionaire I could do some very high quality things with my money, like
build a museum to house beautiful material objects for all to
contemplate and perhaps have a DQ experience.
Platt
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