Greetings Economists, On Aug 4, 2007, at 9:48 AM, Ted Winslow wrote:
Balzac, for instance, who is represented as someone "who so thoroughly studied every shade of avarice," is cited as insightful about the different roles played by "hoarding" in "childhood" and mature forms of avarice; he "represents the old usurer Gobseck as in his second childhood when he begins to heap up a hoard of commodities." This difference in the "identities" of childhood and mature forms of greed rules out the existence of a unit common to each in terms of which each could be "measured".
Doyle; Balzac was using a script or writing system to describe 'feelings' or passions. I've made the point before writing per se cannot accurately reproduce 'feelings'. The metric to describe feelings is what people do in the real world. It's a spatial 'metric'. One could say a measure/metric is done if one takes a picture because the picture can be thought of as network graph. Whose points have definite properties in a neural network. To say one can't discern greed on a grand scale from greed at a child scale is mystifying the material action. In any case people feel to act, as well as think to act, and usually we mean by 'think' words spewing out in the mind, but thinking is not just words. Thinking though is distinct from feeling. And each has definite and known boundaries that cause connection issues in society. Grid computing offers network connections that allow us to manufacture knowledge related to feeling or the spatial 'measure' of action, do or don't. Greed and any other emotional state is a shape in space of action. Cut the emotion pathway in the frontal lobe and the greedy person can't be greedy anymore. Doyle
