RE: MD the metaphysics of free-enterprise

From: Paul Turner (paul@turnerbc.co.uk)
Date: Mon Jul 26 2004 - 11:02:35 BST

  • Next message: Paul Turner: "RE: MD Anti-theism in the MOQ"

    Hi Mel

    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:
    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 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:
    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:
    I would say that is 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 - 11:00:05 BST