[MD] Intellectual activity

[David Harding]

Hi SA,

As usual, a great post.  I've just made a couple of comments below.
>      Talking about $ here.  Just curious David, for I
> agree with you that $ is on the social level, and I
> couldn't have said it better myself, "...$ (society)
> can value things on the biological, social and
> intellectual levels differently depending on the
> particular culture."  What I am curious about is how a
> car more intellectual than say a pop artist CD?  When
> you say car, do you mean the making of a car?  Not
> just the aesthetic value, but all the motoristic
> gadgets and such.  If so, then I get what your saying.
>  
>   
Yeah,  generally cars have had more thought put into the creation of 
them than pop CDs.
>      Craig, I don't see how you are putting $ on the
> DQ level.  Like Gene said, maybe the intellectual, but
> I would like to hear your argument for that, and with
> all the celebrity fan-fare, and with the stylistic
> social pressures that I mentioned before, grass shoes
> compared to stylish nike advertised shoes, these
> products, as D.H. said above, are valued not for their
> intellectual practical makings (except in the 'lab'
> somewhere to open up some new market with some new
> creative footwear), which the idea at first was DQ,
> but then intellectually created, in turn to fulfill a
> biological necessity in time.  
>      For instance, grass shoes and nike shoes help
> hold out the weather, that's what shoes are for,
> right?  Grass shoes with all the other practical
> materials that the Alps Ice Man from ca. 6000 B.C.
> wore where more practical and thus, intellectually
> created than nike shoes, which these latter are
> socially more valued, currently, than grass shoes. 
> Yet, in the winter grass shoes would work better, why
> doesn't everybody wear them?  Therefore $ is socially
> valued and we can buy intellectual books that might
> even help induce a DQ moment (give us something
> different to think about) or our social value of $ can
> provide a nice pet rock, which on the inorganic level
> this rock was raised to a social value for some odd
> reason.
>   
I think 'pets' are on the biological level.  Unless of course you have a 
pet monkey? Or your dog can use a knife and fork? : - )

Cheers,

David.