Hello Andre:
A > Mel, you must have read my mind!...though not necessarily about predicate > calculus for formal logic...don't know much about them. m predicate calculus is just a use of symbols to replace clauses or phrases in an assertion or rhetorical argument for the purpose of determining the "Truth Value" of the statement(s) Sounds like more than it is. It should be taught to ten or eleven year old kids in school. You can master most of it in a week. I have a map that I put together of the levels and vectors of static versus dynamic that as I look at it could be reduced to a symbolic shorthand...not sure if it would be helpful, yet, but it is definitely possible. For now we should probably stay with language. > > A > I must start by saying that I am not versed in economics, philosophy, > metaphysics or any of the specialities that I think are required to, not > only contribute in a sensible way to this discuss but also to make sense of > this discuss in the first place. > All this throwing around of concepts produced by one intellectual system or > other which have their origin in and special meanings attached to > where...this is all very intellectual but this MoQ, which is what this > discuss is supposedly about is most definately losing its base i.e. its > Social Level.Also meaning: to be understood not by just a handfull of very > smart university educated professors. > m I agree we too frequently Lose our Base. (On the other hand it has an advantage, in that as one practices the art of arguing or debating one gets batter and more nimble at it.) I don't know about university profs, but my sense is that most who post are ordinary folk who read more than watch they TV. Most have probably gone to college, but not all. A > I really am just a normal human being, a static pattern of values, every > second of the day receptive to dynamic quality and finding it here and > there...don't worry. I find it by not intellectualising...I find it by > trying as much as possible to open myself up (beginner's mind?) to things > nature, same old nature, everyday again, presents to me. I find it with my > students who, in their combination of wisdom and absolute naivete allow me > to learn and experience (because I open myself up) quality events that will > become my own static patterns of value. m If I parse this correctly, the first sentence and a few words,it is what is known in the US as, "I'm just a poor country lawyer." It is a set up by someone far brighter than they pretend...right before they say "checkmate" or point out that the emperor had no clothes. :-) As to the last part, I envy your students to have such a teacher. I only had a few who were similarly inclined--open minded. >A > In this discuss I am also learning about the American attitude, their > ideas about freedom, liberty, democracy and I realise I do not know anything > at all. I learn about their ideas about "social" ...and I think > non-existent!! You are a conglomerate of individuals still trying to come to > terms with the idea of living together on on block of land. And experiencing > this as having to put up with the other fellow human being. > m I do not know from where you hail, but a word of warning about "Americans." We are a more subtly diverse people than outsiders tend to see. In a strange way we seek to find a commonality as a way to avoid conflict that is much the same behavior as in the nineteenth century when most men carried guns... While freedom, liberty, and democracy are "Holy Words" we don't always use them the same way. Yet at the same time we are an oddly more socialized culture than one sees elsewhere. Americans will form lines and ranks and order even more readily than the stereotypical idea of a German. Your notion of us as a "conglomerate of individuals still trying to come to terms..." is interesting. I think we've figured it out in a high order of magnitude way. America looks as if it is one nation with fifty states. mmmm sort of. Did you know there are seventy-two thousand governments in the US that have taxing authority? I don't know for certain, but I suspect that may exceed any other continent's numbers. Our effective tax rate passed 50%, I believe, under Ronald Reagan...not sure what it is now. A > All these previous posts on the why and wherefores of fucking personal and > federal income taxes considering them as "low social patterns of value" is, > as a European human being working in China, absolutely astounding!. > When I am "home" again, and working there, I pay more than 30% towards > taxes..to be used socially. I may not always agree on the percentage of > distribution or wisdom of their allocation but I am always conscious of the > fact that I am a part of a society of human beings, with all our handicaps, > short comings, illnesses, diseases whatever. m Part of the low quality of taxation has to do with how cumbersome the process is. We also are unused to the federal government being the arbiter of the social functions, this is a middle third of the twentieth Century. Traditionally the local town, community, churches was where the socail was provided...and much more efficiently, sensitively, and often wisely. Federal aid has been know to promote idleness, while local aid often came in the form of work, oddly enough. Many of us find idleness distasteful while we work two or more jobs ourselves. (That as least is a Western US attitude...maybe different elsewhere.) A > I saw this thing with Sen.Sanders (some reacions were..yeah, a quality > person) and I thought nothing of what he said was really so special, but > I was mostly surprised by the show host's reaction ( assuming his voice was > the voice of most Americans..How can you say this? I thought socialism ( > fellow human beings of paramount concern) went out with the fall of > communism? I mean...how fucking naive can you get? and short sighted...and > egocentric, and selfish!). Like the Japanese said of ZMM...what's so > special?? m Socialism versus socialism is also a language-perception problem. We often focus on a different meaning than western Europeans do. Rather than a "social/communal welfare concern "more common to the liberal democracies of Europe. We view the "confiscatory economic spectre of destroying our ability to make a living" as the definition we are discussing. We are fine with helping our fellow man, the question is How Best to do it. A > Your zealous defence of "individualism/ egocentricity and selfishness > combined into apology of self reliance" is based on the collective blood, > sweat and tears of millions of your predecessors. Poor fucking immigrants > who died to live up to this impossible hallucination of the American Dream! > on top of those who did not believe in that dream in the first place and > just wanted to develop a life of quality for themselves. > Your taxes are intended for the social good, and it is not my fault that > these taxes go towards the fabrication of more and more weapons of > destruction( that are used in over three quarters of the globe killing, > maiming, suffocating ,unsettling, bribing and forcing other peoples into > believing that your ideas of SOM non-quality is the highest quality to be > achieved so be fucking thankfull for having us here) especially when you > vote for fucking leaders that persuade you to do so... and that that is the > social good and indeed your god-given responsibility! You need a rethinking > of your values and that is why Pirsig wrote ZMM and Lila. m There you go. Now you see why we bash our individual heads against the wall and punch at bricks that have shadows on them. We listen to EVERY candidate saying that we are going to help not just us but everyone in the world live better lives and then they ALL combine their efforts to line their own special interest's pockets and screw things up for anyone else. There are a lot of Americans who would like to go back to being the isolationist 1910's or 1930's, but the typical arguement is WWI and WWII. We took our eyes off the world and it cost us tens of thousands of deaths. So, why look at MOQ? Maybe something can be changed in the chain and the outcome will shift. > A > I read through some of your posts an adherence to the scenario I am painting > here. > > Discussion came up about profits/ monies etc i.e. social rewards. The > question was something like; what can we replace it with. I suggested a > moneyless society and I saw your reactions...keep on dreaming Andre. > You are looking for an alternative reward to all the hard work you put in > everyday, to make things comfortable for yourselves and your children and > hopefully your childrens children. m I don't think I posted on moneyless, but it is a measure of a certain perception of value. If you take one measure away, you are right back to the question of finding another measure of value. Most folks I know do what they do for their children. So, no change in that portion of things. Money is just another tool, no more or less useful for its purpose. A billion dollars won't substitute for a jack handle on an icy stretch of road, for a flat, without phone service. But a jack handle won't buy a stretch of light rail commuter track. Each tool to its use. > A > How about this really soft, fluffy,woolley, intangible thing called quality > which you find when you start caring (another one of wooley, hippy- like > things) about what you do everyday day of your life, caring about those > around you.Caring so much that you begin to wonder why you do not have a > national health system, caring enough to wonder why your education system is > in the state it is in,caring enough so you begin to wonder why the welfare > system is in a mess. These are social networks put in place through the > caring intellectual attitude because it has recognised that not everyone has > the same opportunities, not everyone is born with equal capacities etc etc. > Caring enough that you indeed begin to wonder why some one person should > have 22 billion dollars in the bank and some of your countrymen have nothing > to show for except an honest family for an honest days pay for an honest > day's work and nothing more and should anything happen to mum or dad that > this automatically reduces them to destitution. > The value experience you get cannot be converted into money. This is an > insult to the quality work you have put in!! > Wake up to yourselves...it is indeed all SO fucking M thinking. m We all want a solution to the medical issue, but we need to find the right one. Some of us see how the Federal Gov't provides services in the post office and don't want that horrid model for medicine. Other watch the Fed response to Katrina. I'm sure New Orleans is full of people ready to turn their welfare over to Washington... We argue because so far all the models fail to provide what we are looking for. Every other nation's model, when you look closely has more holes than they admit or than we are willing to accept. But the two candidate we have now would be happy to push ANY model that makes them look good, regardless of how much we are helped. I think we need to get more creative. But I agree SOM is still too B-I-G A > > When can we get back to MoQ stuff? I really enjoyed Marsha and woods' > conversation and am very sorry to see it stopped due to differing personal > experiences (and interpretations in Moq terminology) of the same thing. If > we keep this up we are destroying the MoQ and in the process render our > personal experiences once again meaningless and thereby handing victory to > good old SOM. > > Tear me to bits! m -Hard to tear away when I largely agree. -Thanks for letting me explain the peculiarly regional view I have of Good ole U S of A. -I agree we need to get back to MOQ thanks--mel Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
