Dear Platt,
Your responses disappoints me.
It is sad to see an MOQer making such a total ass of himself.
Still, let's press on...
In a message dated 6/18/02 4:56:26 PM GMT Daylight Time, pholden@sc.rr.com
writes:
> Hi Squonk:
>
> > 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.
>
> I ask for examples of societies with no money that have high social
> values and you give me American Indians?
Native American Indians that is.
Before the white man came with his money they had high social value - some
still have?
It seems to me that you appear to hold your civilisation to be at the cusp of
evolution with regard to social value? Not an uncommon view i imagine as it
is very often most difficult for members of one culture to sincerely
acknowledge the values of another?
>
>
> You must be using language
> creatively and expressing your enjoyment of irony again. Likewise with
> your following statements:
This is not the time for Mr. Sarcasm to visit.
>
> > 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.
>
> Last time I looked it takes a lot of money to buy a motorcycle that one
> can then "relate" to.
'Last time i looked' i had not made any suggestions about abandoning tokens
of wealth.
>
> > 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.
>
> I have no idea what you mean by 'agent centered ethics.' A creative use
> of language no doubt.
This is because you have not studies ethics.
That is not my concern.
Yes, water is a biological necessity and thus > worth a lot of money when it
> is scarce. As for static locations and static institutions, they are as
needed for survival as material > water and
> Dynamic forces. Pirsig writes:
>
> "Although Dynamic Quality, the Quality of freedom, creates this world in
> which we live, these patterns of static quality, the quality of order,
> preserve our world. Neither static nor Dynamic Quality can survive
> without the other." Chp. 9.
Water is worth a lot of money when it is scarce?
For heaven's sake what kind of thinking does your culture generate when you
can drop a real asshole statement like that?
Think about what you have said?
All the tokens of wealth in the world will not get you water in the desert.
That does not make water valuable for no one would exchange money for water
under such circumstances soft lad.
The scarcity of water makes the water more valuable than money!
In your quote concerning the necessity of Dynamic AND static, too much of
either can be a problem? And in my view, museums and galleries can be a
little too static and exclusive for my liking.
>
> It seems we are entirely different planets, Squonk. I'm happy with mine
> and I hope you are as equally content even though you seem resentful
> of those who make a lot of money. (-:
>
> Platt
>
This sounds rather like a sign off on your part?
Not untypical of you to avoid the responses that have been given to your more
ridiculous statements and then to scuttle off with a silly parting shot of
sorts.
I note you completely avoid discussing the importance of caring for example?
By the way, 'You' may be happy with, 'Your' Planet Mr. 'I view reality in
terms of ownership' but there ain't going to be much of your Planet left in a
few decades thanks to those who destroy its biosphere in pursuit of,
errrrrrr, MONEY.
Peace,
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 - 16:02:20 BST