[MD] Mill: Quality philosopher

[Heather Perella]

Hello Michael, Arlo, and others,

     Michael said:  "Now, we in the West hardly
consider the principles of property ownership and free
markets heretical. However, by imposing these values
elsewhere in the world, we are likewise guilty of
asserting
"what things [other societies] ought to like or
dislike" rather than
"questioning whether [our] likings or dislikings
should be a law to
individuals [elsewhere]". In other words, we impose
our social
traditions upon other societies, rather than acting
for the cause of
genuine liberty."

     I understand that you have been screening through
the differences between liberty and tradition.  I am
seeing the clarity of this discussion beginning to
peek over the hill.  This is really interesting. 
Could you please expand on what this 'genuine liberty'
is?  As of now, I take genuine liberty to mean what
Arlo calls 'flow'.  The context and examples that both
of you have used help clarify this understanding even
more.  Could you also, Arlo, expand on flow?  
     From what I gather about tradition and liberty a
conflict is not necessarily within a culture between
the two, if dynamic quality is available.  The
conflict will definitely arise when one culture
imposes a traditional liberty upon another culture's
tradition that may not find the introduced liberty to
be all that liberating.  This goes right along with
what I have been saying for quite some time now, which
is this U.S. culture has tangled the meaning of
freedom with capitalism.  Freedom in this culture
means $, company work schedules, and capital (goods)
to be consumed.  
     Whereas, in another culture, freedom could mean
being able to see ones' family whenever they want to,
even while they work, for instance a hunter.  The
hunter will need to get food.  Yet, if time (based on
food=survival and the hunter has some time before a
lack of food becomes a threat) permits, the hunter
could leave the hunt at any time of the day or night,
and come back home to say hello or play with the
children.  Whereas, in this culture freedom exists as
long as everybody can fulfill a work schedule and get
their 8 hours in.  If those 8 hours are not fulfilled
some lack of freedom exists and the free market seems
threatened.  There are two definitions of freedom
involved in these two cultures.
     Another example of differences of freedom are
found in Australian cultures.  Studies have been done
that show that aborigines had more time to do 'hang
out' or 'be creative with their time doing tasks that
are not necessarily for survivals sake', than more
technological cultures that have toasters,
dishwashers, ovens, washers and dryers etc...  These
technological cultures have all of these modern
conveniences because they are supposed to free up our
time involved in working around the house or office,
yet, they don't.  We actually spend more time doing
work with these technological devices than involved in
the other activities that are possible, such as
spending time with our family.  These technologies
that have promised less attention from us actually
take more and more attention from us.  This prose is
not a correct or incorrect way of life necessarily,
what I bring this up for is how freedom from culture
to culture, time to time, has come to have different
meanings.  
     But if we think about it, how much of our time
involves doing things that are for merely survivals
sake, as compared to experiencing times that are more
dynamic and open to the creative events or as I
believe Arlo puts it - open to the flow?  

Thanks,
SA 

P.S.  This study is in an anthropological textbook
somewhere in a box at my wife's mother's house, but
much of the dry wall and painting is complete at our
new house so I'll be moving in these books soon so
I'll be able to give more detailed discussions of
these examples I give at times.
   

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com