Hello Mark, Mary and MD,
There is still hope and I will go right to the point. (I have only so much time before the rest of
the family wakes up and demands the use of the computer).
After living in the Land of Milk and Honey for so many years, there is something I have learned
from my adopted American Brothers/Sisters. You call call them names, but man never touch their
wallet. Everything has to make a 'profit' in order to catch on. So please bear with me here.
Money is not such a bad thing after all, if we use it as a 'latch factor' to brake or modify some
static patterns. Or in other words, take those static patterns and increase the amount of Dynamic
Quality into them. As I understand that MoQ works, the value of a static pattern could be measure
in proportion to the amount of Dynamic quality that it holds. (I hope someone is with me on this
one).
So here is my Formula/ recipe (remember I am a Scientist/parent):
Ingredients: (a) X = a particular static pattern (in this example lets take 'the two paycheck
family/Daycare predicament')
(b) Y = Latch factor (in this example 'money')
(c) Z = a New and improve version of 'X'
Z = X(Y)
Let's put some numbers/values into the equation and see what we could come up with.
i) Example #1
Z=0
This is Z is equal zero. (The function approximates zero toward less Quality, becoming more
static).
ii) Example #2
Z= Infinite
This is Z is infinite. (The function approximates towards its highest possible Quality, becoming
more Dynamic).
iii) Z= 1
This is Z is normalized to a 'value' of 1. We could use here the Universal 'Bell shape function'.
Where the highest possible value in our hypothetical graph is the 'value' of '1'. The lowest value
= 0 and the highest value equals infinite.
Now lets go into each example.
Example #1. Z = 0
Z = X(Y)
[For Mary, Mark, Carmen and who knows how many others; this was a 'personal experience'. They came
to the conclusion that Z=0.
Because The two paychecks and the cost of Daycare canceled each other out. Who knows? It might
have even gone on the 'Negative scale'. Mary, Mark and Carmen were the Lucky Ones.
P.S *: An example of when Z is a negative infinite value is the example of that Nanny from the
Ur-pair, where an innocent child ended up DEAD. (I hope you get the picture here). This family was
very unlucky.]
[ For the Mayor 'Widget' corporation. The Board of directors have to cater to the 'stock buyers'.
Their predicament: They have to make 'profits'. They have to compete. They don't have either the
time plus is not their place to 'take care' of 'family' problemas. Besides, it can't be that nice
at home with the Kids, because look at the number of workers taken our offers. If Home was such a
'good deal', then why, aren't more of those people 'at home' taking care of their own businesses.]
Here we have two extreme situations. Two faces of the same coin.
What is a Family to do? / What is a Corporation to do?
The MoQ Master (this is a new guy I invented, who tells me about 'what option has the most
Quality'). ( Please bear with him, he doesn't know our language too well, but Man...is it full of
wisdom??!!!. You will be the Judge).
The MoQ Master spoke this words:
MoQ Master: Baby no ready for world. Needs loving parents. Corporation not making profits, cannot
afford Wages for workers (let alone Pay for Social Cost). Too many parents pounding on Cooperation
Doors.
MoQ student: That pretty much paints the picture MoQ Master, and please don't forget the people
from the rest of the community, whom you can call any ugly name you want, but don't touch their
wallets. And please MoQ Master, don't forget about the Manna part (the money, please don't forget
the MONEY....)/.
MoQ Master: Let Master Compute. Let Master Meditate. Let Master alone for a while. Master will
show answer later.
MoQ student:
[here is where you, yes any of you reading right now...come in with 'your calculations'. Yes, you:
The MD_discuss members. Bob, lng, Fred, Mary, Mark, Drose, Struan (I love you man!!! * see
footnote *1), Horse, Kev S., Ken.....anyone of you .....]
A recap: Let's don't ask for Charities. Let's make that equation turn around. Let's make our side
of the fence so profitable, that Corporation, Governments and the Common People begin to 'Pay
attention'.
It is a supply and demand problem we are facing here. I would like to apply a MoQ solution to it.
So HELP, please.
Thank you, muchos besos,
Carmen.
{*1: This is a joke, which you might or might not understand. But you need to be familiar with
that American T.V. commercial about beers. I am sure my American Brothers/Sisters will get it. Do
you get it Fred?.}
Mary Wittler wrote:
> Hi Mark & Friends,
>
> Thanks for responding, Mark - and WELCOME! As it turns out, we are practically neighbors. I
> live out in the country north of Dallas, near Anna, Texas. I've driven I35 through Temple
> many times. I'm also a telecommuter, working for a large telecom company in Richardson where
> I write Java. My husband is my house-husband. He stays home to care for our 4 year old son
> and work on our unfinished house. We have completely reversed roles. He does the cooking and
> cleaning while I bring home the bacon and health insurance. Offline, I'd be very interested
> to hear what your "small startup company" does.
>
> I appreciate your comments:
> ... I'm a stay-at-home dad who telecommutes. Yes, I work and I'm a
> primary care giver. Her post (accidentally, I'm sure) seems "conventionally
> sexist" to me. I admit there is a cultural bias against fathers as primary
> care givers...I mean, I live in a very small town, I know. I can't go to
> the park without someone assuming that I either took off work for the day
> for a special occasion, my wife is sick, I'm a bum without a job, or some
> combination of the three.
>
> We have experienced many of the same biases, and you are right - my post was pretty sexist!
> That was lazy writing on my part. I just get tired of trying to write in him/her, either/or,
> etc. all the time. Our language is just not amenable to gender neutrality - though I did make
> it worse by talking about Mothers to the exclusion of Fathers.
>
> I like this too - what a lovely idea:
> ... is there any reason why, if women are now
> intellectually considered the equals of (to have the same quality as) men
> "in the ways of the world," men should not be considered the equals of (to
> have the same quality as) women "in the ways of the family?"
>
> When I proposed the idea of equating child-rearing with military service it was just an
> off-the-cuff idea. But now that I've thought about it for a couple of days it just keeps
> growing and growing in my mind. Giving the next generation a good start has got to be equal
> if not more important to a nation than its own defense. For some people, this will no doubt
> equate with "welfare Mothers", whom we are at this moment busily trying to eliminate in this
> country. But it's not the same thing at all. You could structure the system, give it
> parameters such as time limits or limits on the number of children per woman (yes, per woman
> since it is a woman after all who actually bears the child!) In fact, you could follow many
> of the patterns already in use for military service to shape a system that gives everyone an
> equal opportunity at parenting.
>
> Help me here folks! I like this idea so much I want to send a letter to Hillary about it. I
> think equating it with military service is the key - the way to sell it to conservatives.
> Thoughts anyone?
>
> --
> Best wishes,
> Mary Wittler
>
> ~ cognite tute ~ (think for yourself)
>
> MOQ Online Homepage - http://www.moq.org
> Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
> Unsubscribe - http://www.moq.org/md/index.html
> MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
MOQ Online Homepage - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Unsubscribe - http://www.moq.org/md/index.html
MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:03:04 BST