Jeremy Seabrook wrote: "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,"
and Boris replied: "There is no progress without competition. The problem is in the excesses," I then wrote: "there was a good deal of merit in Boris's reponse." Admittedly I said this because I was about land heavily on Boris for his unthinking use of 'meaning'. But then William and Rupert land on Boris for his championing of "competition": William said: > I challenge you to provide the reasoning that supports your comments. > > Rupert said: > Not just the reasoning that supports your comments, but also the > assumptions > that give meaning to your comments, for William is right to say that > without > this > background, they amount to very little. > Which prompts me to a bit of defense for Boris. Given that Boris was responding to Seabrook's assertion that the market economy is the most efficient mechanism possible for bringing the planet to the edge of ruin, I'd say the "background" of Boris's remark is somewhat clear. Somewhat. Seabrook seems the fool here. Almost every phrase in his sentence is faulty. So I have two gripes about Boris's response. Seabrook is hopelessly ambiguous or wrong or both, so answering him is wasted forum time. Moreover, the topic is inapt for an aesthetics forum. I see no reason to believe Seabrook is taking "aesthetics" to be identical with the "planet".
