From: Paul Turner (paul@turnerbc.co.uk)
Date: Mon Jul 26 2004 - 13:56:59 BST
Hi Mel
Ignore the last post; I hit "send" instead of "save" when it wasn't
finished. (Also, if you get this twice, sorry, my mail server has told
me it didn't send so I'm sending it again, just in case.)
Paul previously said:
...I think the personal or individual success (or failure) that you
"hold out for" also occurs at other levels, so cannot be a defining part
of the intellectual level. In my experience, the most dominant measure
of personal success is wealth - a social level phenomenon. ..Anyway, in
my understanding of the MOQ, subordinating intellectual patterns to a
primarily social level goal of individual success is immoral.
Mel said:
Most people that I have encountered who truly believe wealth to be THE
significant measure of success for individuals have either:
A) Never made any real amount of money whatsoever ::or::
B) They are developmentally stunted individuals of low quality
Paul:
Regardless, the question remains - is it the most *dominant* measure of
success in western society?
For instance, here is a dictionary (M-W) definition of "success":
"degree or measure of succeeding b : favorable or desired outcome; also
: the attainment of wealth, favor, or eminence"
Wealth is clearly linked with success enough for it be part of its
definition. To put it another way, I ask you the same question I asked
Platt - do you think intellectual quality is the most dominant measure
of success in western society?
Mel said:
More typically the use of SUCCESS is oriented towards more specific
examples of an Outcome compared to an Intent. e.g. A successful.
surgery, garden, construction project,
dramatic performance, recital, fruit crop, training.etc.
Paul:
Okay, but I'm talking about success in general terms, e.g. the answer to
the question a teacher may ask of a former student, "How is Paul doing?"
The answer to this would not normally be, "I hear he has just finished a
great loft conversion."
Mel said:
We seem to have an implicit association of:
MONEY = Social Artifact.
Money may be just as much an intellectual tool as a social one.
Remember, the intellectual level is still dependent on the social and as
such will make use of it.
Paul:
This is true, but I think the only intellectual aspects of money would
be the static patterns that make up the academic area of economic theory
and the mathematical formulae which accountants and treasurers use.
Mel said:
Non-commercial research is an example of a use of money for
intellectual...
Paul:
Yes, I would say that is an example of intellectual patterns using
social patterns to enable their evolution.
Cheers
Paul
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
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 2.1.5 : Mon Jul 26 2004 - 14:20:32 BST