[MD] Economics

[Andre Broersen]

Jan Anders to dmb:
Yes, and a gentleman with a sound intellect are pretty aware of that his 
intellect is dependant upon the social, the biological and inorganic 
level and that these levels must be treated well to ensure the quality 
of the intellectual level. Therefore it can be a good choice to release 
the intellectual control over the earlier levels sometime in between.

Andre:
Is that all you can produce JA? Is this really your response to the 
quotes dmb has presented to you from LILA. Is this realy your response 
to the writings of Pirsig? Is this your response to the behaviour, for 
example, of every fucking banker in the West lately striking up his and 
her bonusses for leading us, ordinary citizens, into one crisis after 
another and adhering to the wonderful rule, (now well ingrained in the 
banking and financial system and markets) that the losses are to be 
socialized (i.e. paid for by the masses)and the profits privatized 
(i.e.deposited in one's private pocket)?

No wonder he reflected at and on the end of the twentieth century as 
being a moral rustbelt. And this is only one indication thereof. You 
seem to support this sort of behaviour.

Don't use the excuse of picking up barladies in the mean time. You seem 
to miss the point completely. What you do is propagate the current moral 
dustbelt as being morally inevitable and therefore morally acceptable. 
And you do this when it suits you. When it suits you because you simply 
cannot and will not stop your wife from licking your ears!!! Don't give 
us the 'sometime in between' bit JA.

And in the mean time the ordinary peoples of Europe are taken to the 
slaughterhouse in an effort to safeguard the disastrous financial karma 
it has invoked on itself for present and future generations.

The point dmb and Pirsig are making is the moral goodness of 
intellectual patterns dominating social and biological patterns. In 
other words it is good for social and biological patterns to be 
subordinate to intellectual patterns. Currently some intellectual 
patterns are subordinated to serve  social (financial) interests. This 
seems to be an accepted moral code (which you defend)in the same way 
what held the Victorian pattern together.

However, it is just a social code, not an intellectual one. "They called 
it morals, but really it was just a social code. As a code it was just 
like their ornamental cast-iron furniture: expensive looking, cheaply 
made, brittle, cold, and uncomfortable."

And if that is not a nice description of twenty-first century money (as 
opposed to the Marxian notion where money was linked to labour... it 
being designated as 'frozen labour'which it is). No,mere numbers on a 
digital sheet of paper with no connection at all to any form of 
experience/endeavour...no connection at all to moral human activity.

And you excuse this because you cannot and will not prevent your wife 
from licking your ears? Oh, you have the old Christian excuse: the mind 
is willing but the flesh is weak...rust and dustbelt put together... 
that's what your response is. Disappointing to say the least.