In a message dated 6/17/02 5:56:44 PM GMT Daylight Time, pholden@sc.rr.com
writes:
> 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?
This is most patronising of you Platt.
Social values expand upon the suppression of biological values and to this
extent there are many societies in the world that do this very well.
Many native American tribes are good examples of this.
>
> > 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?
By relation to material quality i have in mind the motorcycle.
If one cares about the motorcycle then the caring is reflected in the
material quality of the cycle. There is really no distinction between cycle
and one's attitude as the real cycle you are working on is yourself.
Money disrupts these relationships as one is not directly involved in a
relationship with material quality if material quality amounts to figures on
your bank balance.
Money can by prostitutes, presidential campaigns, personal armies and all
sorts of low quality stuff. If you buy something for yourself you don't own
it until you have affected and been affected by it/them.
Its all about personal relationships i feel.
>
> 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
>
It seems to me you view ethics from an agent perspective.
I find agent centred ethics tends to remove the 'you' from the picture, i.e.
there is no 'you' in the relationship.
Character ethics was what the Greeks went in for and for them arte ruled not
wealth.
Water is required for biological maintenance.
Museums are static institutions in static geographic locations.
I'm not sure why you have brought these in except to have them flaunted in
some way?
>From a social perspective we need to support biological values up to a point,
(provide basic necessities such as water and food, etc.) and lay rather less
emphasis on the obscene hoarding of personal (dis)interests.
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