Why does "progress" require competition? What is progress? What is competition? Your comment is a tangle of implications without coherence. To start, it presumes that progress is good and inherent to change when in fact change is nothing but change and progress is a judgment of it and not intrinsic to it, as is goodness. And what outside ideal or condition prescribes that progress is good or good is inherent to change? And why is competition integral to change except in the sense that anything at all is integral to change, even non-competition? Once again, you give a summative statement that presumes a formative logic it does not have. Upon the simplest analysis your blunt and judgmental summations unravel as nothing but disconnected strings of words. Boris, with respect, I challenge you to provide the reasoning that supports your comments. wc
----- Original Message ---- From: Boris Shoshensky <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Sun, October 10, 2010 11:34:59 AM Subject: Re: "If it had been the purpose of human activity to bring the [arts? ] to the edge of ruin, no more efficient mechanism could have been in vented than the market economy." There is no progress without competition. The problem in the excesses. Boris Shoshensky ---------- Original Message ---------- From: joseph berg <[email protected]> To: aesthetics-l <[email protected]> Subject: "If it had been the purpose of human activity to bring the [arts?] to the edge of ruin, no more efficient mechanism could have been invented than the market economy." Date: Sat, 2 Oct 2010 21:52:05 -1000 (Actual quote): - If it had been the purpose of human activity to bring the planet to the edge of ruin, no more efficient mechanism could have been invented than the market economy. Jeremy Seabrook
