From: ml (mbtlehn@ix.netcom.com)
Date: Mon Jul 26 2004 - 15:47:44 BST
Greetings Paul,
> 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?
After reflecting on the question I am going to have to say that I do not
think wealth is the dominant measure, but rather CELEBRITY is.
It will of course depend on the "community of interest" in which the
measure of success is determined or traded upon.
For political arenas ACCESS is a better measure
For medicine, the Published Accomplishments
For authors, the numbers sold or the recognition may surpass the $
For athletes in the short run $ may be part of it, but in the long run
Hall of Fame, and such will be their more enduring legacy.
I believe wealth is only a false perception of actual success in the
newsmedia even in the SOM viewpoint. You are however correct
that there is often a connection, but it is not dominant, but rather
the only measure recognized by persons too lazy to look deeper.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------
> 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."
>
Actually, it might be...
I must here admit to living a somewhat eccentric existence. In my life
and the lives of my more intimate circle, that very knowledge of a
share familiarity with another's project may very well be the subject of
mutual interest.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------
> 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.
R Waters:
...new car, caviar, four star day dream,
think I'll buy me a football team...
mel:
So, then subverting the social artifact of money
to biological enjoyment is an immoral act...?
thanks--mel ;-)
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 - 17:42:26 BST