[MD] Values

[Ham Priday]

Hi David --


> DM: I provided a link in my last email did you see it?

No, I saw no links but the standard MoQ references at the bottom of your 
9/24 message.

However, I did check with Amazon, found that the author is James Gouinlock, 
and was able to read a couple of pages from the Introduction.  His style is 
simple enough, but I don't see much substance to what he has to say.  The 
most profound assertion I read was that man learns from his responses to the 
values that affect his life, rather than from the information this provides. 
Perhaps there is more actual philosophy in the body of the book which Amazon 
did not make accessible.

> Marcuse was a student of Heidegger and I think his One Dimensional Man
> is a decent book.

Yes, I believe that was the one I read.  But I became disenchanted with 
existentialism after reading Sartre, and the concept that essence is created 
from being is a twisted notion that never made sense to me.

> I would suggest that given modern understanding of
> hygiene and how infections are caught it is possible to
> use sex recreationally in the modern world and to have
> very little negatives.  As a result of this of you an work it
> into how your relationships and family are structured.
> Much fear about this is derived from real dangers in the
> past that can be avoided by modern technology/protection
> and knowledge.

Your endorsement of "recreational sex" is exactly what's wrong with our 
society.  You seem to think that promiscuity is fine so long as it is 
"hygienic" and does not lead to impregnation or disease.  You even suggest 
that it's a practical way to test a relationship for marriage.  Are you 
aware of what rampant sexuality has done to our culture?  First of all, the 
value of intimacy has been sacrificed to the irresponsible "have fun now" 
value system of today's youth.  Out of wedlock pregnancy is no longer shamed 
by society, so we produce more bastards each year that have to be raised by 
orphanages at the taxpayers' expense, not to mention the criminal propensity 
of fatherless children.  And if you think premarital sex improves the 
prospects for a good marriage, you need to check the statistics.

> So I'd say that as moderns we have more opportunity for
> pleasure without the same costs that are ancestors faced so
> we can shrug off some of their fears and customs.

You've just defined the "fun = value" credo of the new generation.  Take 
every opportunity for pleasure, and to hell with traditional values.  I 
sometimes wonder why people bother to marry at all, since it obviously 
narrows their opportunity for fun.  I can't tell you how many failed 
marriages I've seen among people who had a "live-in" relationship before 
deciding to make it "official."  Don't you see that our younger generation 
no longer understands the value of romantic courtship, let alone marriage 
for life.  The availability of birth control and abortion clinics is no 
reason to abandon our cultural morality.  Since we've reduced love between 
two persons to a mechanical act performed for pleasure wherever possible, 
like apes in the jungle, how can we expect our children to grow up as 
responsible parents?

> Surely one day we will be bored with our most basic
> activities and give more attention to our more developed ones.

I think far too many are already bored with marriage and have no time to 
develop the family structure
that is essential to civilization.  We've trashed traditional values because 
having fun has taken precedence over living responsibly.  We like to think 
we've "liberated" ourselves from conventional morality.  What we're really 
done is taken civilization a big step backward.  Where is the value in that? 
The "joy of the moment"?

> I think eventually the media will bore of this pushing back the
> boundaries of taste.

Again, you blame our lack of value judgment on the media, business 
competition, and right wing politics.
It is the individual who brings value into the world, and it is individuals 
who advance or regress social morality by their value choices.

[HP previously]:
> Blaming the competitive market on the right is a frivolous argument.

[DM]:
> That is a very convenient answer and you should be ashamed. Companies
> must maximise their profits, fools must be parted from their money,
> and massive advertising spend seems to work very nicely. Surely you
> are wise enough to see the problem here.

That fools will be parted from their money is the fools' problem, not a 
problem of free enterprise.
You accuse me of a "convenient answer" to your copout.   Foolish, ignorant, 
or irresponsible people do not deserve the rewards of a free society.  Would 
you would change the capitalistic system to reflect the profligacy of its 
people?  Socialism is a system that brings standards down to the lowest 
common denominator.  Is that your solution to a materialistic society that 
no longer values individual initiative, belief in a transcendent reality, or 
the pursuit of excellence that our ancestors dreamed of?  How far we have 
fallen!

> I can assure you that business spends alot of time creating 'needs'
> we did not know we had. How do you think gadgets get sold?
> -you see the problems and try to cover over what is clearly one of
> the causes. Drop the ideology please!

Most of my working life was spent in industrial advertising and marketing, 
so I don't need a lecture on how new products are marketed.  Industrial 
purchasers are well aware of the caveat "buyer beware", and so are 
intelligent consumers.  The FDA, EPA, FHA, and a host of other government 
agencies serve to protect those who aren't.  Frankly, I believe we're 
coddling the consumers already, with state bans on saturated fats and laws 
against smoking.  Soon we'll have government telling them what to eat, how 
to dress, where to live, what to do for recreation, and whom to marry.  Are 
we all retards?

I'll gladly drop the ideology, if you will stop making excuses for 
irresponsible behavior.

Regards,
Ham