From: Valuemetaphysics@aol.com
Date: Tue Jun 08 2004 - 06:12:11 BST
pi:
Relation between the individual, society and money is something I have
pondered over for a long time. And I think the solution is more or less
clear to me now. The first step is to realize which level money falls
within, which ties into last month's topic, "what is a level?". I find
money to lie at the social level, since it is only of value in a society.
Mark 8-6-04: Hi pi, This sounds interesting. I think i agree.
But what about the economist who uses intellectual patterns to try and raise
the (social) value of an economic system? Is there such a thing as a high
Quality economist?
What kind of economy accommodates well a High Quality economist?
If money is, as you suggest, a social pattern, would it be possible to
remove
money altogether for the basic (biological) necessities of life, and have
these needs freely distributed, thus removing want and hunger from society
altogether? This sounds moral in MOQ terms, but it may be argued that a
removal of
much incentive would bleed DQ out of activity.
I know there are allot of questions here, but i think they follow from an
intellectual analysis of the social level.
pi:
Thus when we get a paycheck, the feeling of joy or good is a social form
of good. When we do badly in a stock trade, the low quality feeling is a
social one too. The question becomes much more interesting when we look at
the relation of money with the individual, or the intellectual pattern of
static quality.
Mark 8-6-04: I think you have a good approach to money. Money seems to be
closely tied to celebrity status? Very often the relationship between money
and
the individual is one of skill and status. So i agree with you.
I think you've hit the nail on the head in such a way as to make me wonder
why this question was asked in the first place.
pi:
By definition, money has no significant intellectual value (except perhaps
in a mathematical or economical sense), but has plenty social value.
Seeing money as the principle motivator for any (intellectual)
achievements in life, feels good sometimes and bad other times, for this
very reason.
Mark 8-6-04: Again, i feel a resonance with what you are saying.
I understand many intellectuals are rewarded with social status via economic
carrots, but intellectual work may have very little to do with social
values,
as you have indicated.
Many intellectuals may disregard altogether economic reward as an
irrelevancy
- and this appears to be so with mystics also. I know you have left DQ out
of
this for clarity, which i appreciate.
Many intellectuals live in apparent squalor? I hope David Dutsche (spl?)
will
forgive me for saying this, but when i saw the inside of his house on TV i
thought he was destitute by the looks of it. But DD probably could not give
a
monkey's chuff about decorating when he has the multiverse to ponder?
(Perhaps in another universe DD's house is immaculate.)
pi:
As people who views the world with MOQ glasses, we are very well equipped
to solve this problem, which is essentially a conflict of static patterns.
I still have to perfect the art of living a life of an intellectual in a
materialistic world, but here is how I do it. I am new at it and may sound
very naive, but it does work for me.
Mark 8-6-04: Are you searching for a 'sweet spot' pi? (Well, i had to get it
in somewhere didn't i?) May the balance we all move towards be best
described
as coherence between SQ-SQ tension?
pi:
I try to do good work. I try not to let things such as money, time or
other low quality stuff get in the way. I try to keep gumption very high.
When I have to deal with low quality things such as money, I give them the
attention they deserve, but nothing more. I never let them be more
important than the actual intellectual work I am doing. They are
subordinate to the work. Work done this way produces exceptional
products/results, and the lower quality things such as money automatically
follow.
Mark 8-6-04: Again i find myself asking the question, 'why was this not
understood by the topic provider?' Your description here, and the attitude
with
which the activity is followed sounds like coherence to me pi.
pi:
Comments would be greatly appreciated. How do the rest of you strike a
balance between your intellectual (reason for living) patterns and the
social (necessities for living) patterns?
Mark 8-6-04: I have dropped out of the social economic system pi. There is a
straight answer to a straight question for you.
I have been able to do this because the UK Government provides enough
economic support for the unemployed to make this choice viable. (Just
about!) I'm
pursuing studies but have little idea where it will all lead?
I don't want vast quantities of money - all i find myself really wanting is
to be free. Free to think and enjoy creativity to that level of ability that
freedom may allow.
I have come to regard the 'pushing' of materialism by a consumer lead
socio-economic system to be very flat and largely productive insecurity and
hollowness of being.
P.S: I am not involving the Dynamic, just to keep things simple. But it
does fit very nicely with the strategy I have described above.
cheers,
-pi
Mark 8-6-04: Thanks for a stimulating post pi. I certainly do not intend any
animosity to the topic provider when i wonder why the question was initially
asked. Quite the opposite - sometimes one needs a little kick to see that an
obvious sounding question leads to something of importance.
All the best,
Mark
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_focus/
MF Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_focus follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/mf/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jun 09 2004 - 00:54:25 BST