----- Original Message ----- From: "Harry Pollard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Brad McCormick, Ed.D." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "futurework" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: "Ray Evans Harrell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "jan matthieu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Mantle, Rosalyn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Anthony, David" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Bradskey, Teresa" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Cole, Karen Watters" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Dawn Anthony" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Downs , Jason" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Dunn, Darcy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "H, Joan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "harrell, jane" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Krueger, Jack A." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Sagowa" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Sleigh, Ben and Roz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Watters, Valorie" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, December 06, 2002 9:19 PM Subject: Desires (was Whining)
> Brad, > > You assume too much about personal desires (what other kinds are there)? > > Is it something you cannot conceive that a person might desire more a > lifetime love - than 1,000 experiences of "indescribable pleasure, > indefinitely prolonged". > > Or, to take a walk along the Appalachian Trail than make a corporate merger? > > Or, my lying in a lush English meadow watching the clouds scud across a > blue sky - rather than speeding along in a four wheel drive SUV? > > As I said, desires are personal (no, employees cannot satisfy desires for > you). You have desires, without doubt. What do you really desire? > > How about four more children? Something that was pretty normal at one time > and usually led to lifetime bonding and support when it's needed. > > Before your hair stands on end - or perhaps falls out - think about it. Is > it possible for an average individual to have a larger family under modern > conditions? It's certainly anything but easy. If you don't want a large > family, that's fine. But, if your desire included a family, most people > n0wadays have to put it at the bottom of the list. Just nurturing one child > seems to be a full-time experience with inevitable failure lurking ahead. > Much as I agree with most of what you write, I think this is not completely coherent. Today I was rereading some of Illich's writings (he died recently, and I'm working on a small homage for Oikos, a publication I co-started with some other green ideologues years ago). You know, like where he figures it takes an average person four hours of work to pay for the average 28 km a day he drives his car, meaning 7 km per hour, a distance and speed he could easily cover with a bicycle in half that time. It's in the same vein I look at having four or more children; it all depends what kind of life you want (them) to have. In fact, people never were better off, except perhaps in the seventhies, but still: we can afford to rear and feed several children, certainly in Belgium we can, even on social welfare incomes, if you are content with a simple lifestyle. You don't need a separate bedroom for each kid, for example. So is it possible "for an average individual to have a larger family under modern conditions". It's certainly anything but easy, but it never was so easy, and, as a matter of fact, it is easier now than it was before. I also think you are a bit too pessimistic with 'inevitable failure lurking ahead'. All you can do is feed them and give them an education. That's no failure. Whatever else comes out, is their business. Some become 'successes' in terms of present society, some may end up begging in the subway, but what's 'failure'? > So, while we may have unlimited desires, we find many of them difficult or > impossible. So we put them at the bottom of our hierarchy. (Maybe > conditions will change.) > > Perhaps a test of our well-being might be the attainable desires that open > up before us. > > Perhaps the test of our society is the greater or lesser restriction it > places on the attainment of our personal desires. > Illich would probably say society is creating them for you, forcing them on you. Making one believe he can't live without a lot of desirables which indeed an average person will find very difficult to achieve. So that will make them unhappy. > So, when you next look at the first assumption of human behavior "that > man's desires are unlimited" try not to think of people acquiring five > Cadillacs, or buying 6 companies. Think instead of a person perhaps sitting > alone in the middle of the night, trying desperately to complete his desire > - a perfect love poem. There I agree again. Jan Matthieu > > Harry > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------ > > > Brad wrote: > > >Harry Pollard wrote: > > > > > > Brad, > >[snip] > > > Your Don Juan paragraph is ill-directed to someone who spent 57 years with > > > one woman. > > > >I apologize for your misreading what I wrote as a personal > >accusation instead of as a question about the > >implications of the depersonalized > >hypothesis that man's desires are unlimited. > > > >- > > > >If man's desires are unlimited then Don Juan seems to > >me to be a good example of our nature. > > > >But there > >are other ways to be infinitely insatiable. Business > >merger maniacs are another kind. > > > >One cannot satisfy > >all infinite desires concurrently. You gotta pick and > >choose, and having infinitely many women means one > >probably cannot have infinitely many corporate acquisitions, > >and either of these means you cannot have infinitely many hubcaps > >collected from the side of the road. > > > >One can only > >do one thing at a time (more or less...) -- unless > >one has: EMPLOYEES! Then one can vicariously pursue > >as many kinds of grabbing more and more, as one has > >vicarious hands to grab with.... > > > >So if man's desires are infinite, then the most infinite > >man is the one who has infinitely many employees to > >satisfy as many infinite desires as possible at once -- > >vicariously, however.... > > > >\brad mccormick > > > ****************************** > Harry Pollard > Henry George School of LA > Box 655 > Tujunga CA 91042 > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Tel: (818) 352-4141 > Fax: (818) 353-2242 > ******************************* > >
