[MD] Ham & swiss cheese

[Dan Glover]

Hello SA

I'm a bit pressed for time so a short anwser will have to suffice. Your 
dictionary definition of wealth is right on...the state of being rich. Think 
about it. To build wealth doesn't necessarily mean to be rich. It means 
becoming the type of person who becomes rich, the state of being rich. They 
are not the same. There is a subtlety there that is easily lost.

I do not believe in an egalitarian society for reasons that I've already 
expounded on. We are all unique individuals each on separate paths. The 
diversity of wealth and poverty we find in society is very Dynamic and 
enables us all to move towards that which is better. If we were all equal, 
static stagnation would set in and society as we know it would eventually 
pass away.

At the risk of upsetting you again with my preaching...take the time to 
educate yourself. I just started a wonderful book by John Wooden called 
"Wooden on Leadership" which I find fascinating. There are literally 
hundreds of books that can be used to learn the art of building wealth but 
they don't do you any good until you pick one up and start reading.

Thank you for the discussion,

Dan



>From: Heather Perella <spiritualadirondack at yahoo.com>
>Reply-To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
>To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
>Subject: Re: [MD] Ham & swiss cheese
>Date: Sun, 5 Mar 2006 16:22:59 -0800 (PST)
>
>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
>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/