Re: Slightly extended (was Re: [Futurework] David Ricardo, Cavema n Trade vs. Modern Trade

Mon, 01 Dec 2003 18:36:32 -0800

No Harry, If I wanted to psychologically analyze you it would have been far different.   Besides I only know your written word.   You could be Selma in drag for all I know.    You seem attracted to contractile mechanical classical forms based in the bones of the body.   As i said in the other post.   It seem locked in the models of dysfunctional physical therapy based on old mechanical out of date muscular knowledge.   My examples are organic and based in the holistic architecture of the human body, not as mind, body, spirit but as formal elements that are less rigid and more fluid.    Even the bones are shaped by the forms of liquids.   I use a tree "organic" example and you think psychology.    Why?   Scientists use the "tree of life" all the time.   I referred to your unwillingness to leave your house when I have struggled with your questions.   You didn't say a thing about values beyond the dollar.   Your land reform is close but doesn't go near far enough. 
 
Sorry but I didn't really understand how you had worked on my turf at all.   All I've heard are Friedman like comments about "supply and demand" which are impossible.    If one doesn't understand what serves as the roots of the human tree and how they are developed then one is likely to ignore them and lose the whole tree.   Just because the leaves transform sunlight correctly does not mean that they can live on their own without roots or nutrients from the earth.
 
REH  
 
 
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Monday, December 01, 2003 5:24 PM
Subject: RE: Slightly extended (was Re: [Futurework] David Ricardo, Cavema n Trade vs. Modern Trade

Ray,
 
I was obviously kidding.
 
Or, not so obvious, for off you went into a psychological analysis of me, of which endeavor I'm not sure you are completely competent.
 
I did meet you on your turf - but you weren't there.
 
Harry
 
********************************************
Henry George School of Social Science
of Los Angeles
Box 655  Tujunga  CA  91042
Tel: 818 352-4141  --  Fax: 818 353-2242
http://haledward.home.comcast.net
********************************************
 
 

From: Ray Evans Harrell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, November 26, 2003 9:30 PM
To: Harry Pollard; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Slightly extended (was Re: [Futurework] David Ricardo, Cavema n Trade vs. Modern Trade

Harry said again:
What they work for is food, clothing and shelter. When the basics are dealt with, perhaps then they'll devote some time to the arts - such as Michael Jackson, Madonna, and of course, Britney Spears.
 
Answer:
 
That's not the arts that's entertainment.   Re-read the fifty assumptions.   The basic arts is what made you suck in the first place.   Entertainment is relaxation in the traditional and predictable.    The arts are always on the same cutting edge as when you first searched for the nipple at your mother's breast.   Searching, finding, fulfillment.   Consonance, dissonance in quantifiable aural forms that develop the mind and enrich the whole person's thinking.   You are still talking pablum while I am talking steak.   The problem Harry is that you model is based only on economics when the meaning of existance is a mix and balance of values not just the values of one limb on the tree at the expense of the roots. 
 
You'll have to get beyond mere relaxation before you understand the human meaning imbedded in the arts.   If I were to compare it to math I would say that you are talking addition to a physicist.   There are some things that just can't be explained without a meeting of the minds.    If you worked as hard to meet me on my turf as I have worked to do the same for you then we could do a lot.  I know we could.
 
REH  
 
 

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.541 / Virus Database: 335 - Release Date: 11/14/2003

Reply via email to