[MD] Ham & swiss cheese

[Heather Perella]

Dan,

     For some reason I feel better with the accuracy
in the discussion, rather than any inaccuracy even if
we approach life from different angles.  I totally
understand and agree that gumption in this current
(thus static quality) U.S. culture would bring wealth.
 That is not my lack of understanding.  My lack of
understanding is with your motivating communication
that seems to imply that as long as we have gumption
we could have wealth, it's just out there waiting. 
The implication in this statement seems to be that if
we all had the gumption in this culture, we all could
be wealthy.  When I say all, I mean we all would be
wealthy in comparison with what is defined as wealthy
within this culture.  If we are all wealthy then would
we all be equally wealthy?  Thus, that is why I
thought you meant the dynamic aspect of this culture
implies a potential for egalitarian - equal wealth, in
other words, where we All in this culture are wealthy.
 I understand 'What is Wealthy' could be defined
differently by different people and thus once all
agree that all are wealthy then all would be seen as
wealthy by each other.  This is not currently
happening in the static sense of this culture, but the
dynamic aspect of this culture according to your
motive, says all have the potential to be wealthy,
which also implies enough wealth exists for all to
notice wealth everywhere achieved by everyone because
in this imaginative wealthy culture all would define
and equally live, because of gumption, a wealthy life.
 Is this what you are saying?  For all to be wealthy,
a lot of implications have to follow through for that
to happen.  This is what I was saying here from the
last posting with some change for clarification
purposes as follows:

     I said:  "(4)  You believe in an egalitarian
culture.  Which one of these statements or mixture of
statements (1 through 4) do you think you are stating
about your way of life or is there another way you are
trying to state to me, as it pertains to wealth?"

     Dan said:  "Not sure what this means. Perhaps you
could elaborate if you want an answer."

     I hope I elaborated and cleared up what I was
trying to say above.  Here is what else you brought
up.

     I said:  "So (1) you don't believe this static
quality of the current U.S. culture, as to wealth, is
here due to not choice, in other words if all people
in this culture wanted to they could choose to be
wealthy."

     Dan said:  "I don't understand your question.
Please restate it."

     What I meant is as follows:  Do you think the
static quality of wealth in this U.S. culture and thus
wealth's current distribution in this culture, is due
to choice by the society?  Thus, this ties into my
above question and discussion, which is - If,
everybody chose to, thus had the gumption to strive
for wealth, then wouldn't everybody think equally of
what wealth is and achieve this wealth, therefore
everybody could be wealthy?  This seems to be the
logical conclusion of what you have been stating,
unless I am missing something.  Since you state that
all people need is gumption then everybody could be
wealthy (which would not be this current culture, thus
a change from the norm).  If everybody has the
potential of being wealthy, and with gumption becomes
wealthy then that kind of culture would be
egalitarian.  
     Now, if not everybody can be wealthy, what
prevents them from all being wealthy?  Is it simply
gumption?  If so, why gumption, why not availability
of an equal amount of what could be defined as wealth,
therefore, is there enough wealth out there for
everybody to be satisfied that they are all seen as
wealthy?  
     Yet, this could all be a matter of defining what
wealth is and why some have it and some don't?  Yet,
again, when I look up the definition (yes, in a book,
since you, a person who seems to hold a different
definition than me won't say what your definition is
thus you prevent us from being on an equal
intellectual footing) the definition in 'The American
Heritage Dictionary' says:  wealth 2. The state of
being rich; affluence.  
     Thus, wealth and rich are the same.  Your
definition of zazen and meditation is understood and
recognized and no need on my part to further
understand you as to where you where coming from with
those values.  As to wealth and rich, I don't know
where you are coming from and thus filled in the space
for intellectual understanding and clarity to our
discussion.  If you have another definition I am not
dictating my definition upon your field of experience,
and if you define wealth and rich differently then so
be it and I respect your definition.  

Thanks,
SA 

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