> Wealth is a moving target of course, and leaves one very open to the > vagaries of economics and there's no generational stability like one > used to have with reputation and family heritage.
On the other hand, reputation inheritance has had substantially higher problems with slotting, caste system and all which comes with it. A system that ignores the merits and choices of the individual, in an age where communication across geographical boundaries is not an issue, is bound to collapse, unless bound by totalitarian force. The > Chasing the personal sphere is risky - it is the way of the world > today - but it is risky - and worst of all this risk isn't obvious at > first. Nor is the risk with a totalitarian or family imposed system, at first, if you are within that system. It's very different to look at personal choice from the vantage point that gives you the freedom to choose, and very different to be in the inside of where a personal choice was always inferior to the whims, fancies, orders of a patriarch, a military ruler or a religious leader. The risk of a system is not apparent to those that it envelops, especially when basic needs are satisfied. Kind of like having all the toys in the world inside a room but killer dobermans walking outside. The question of "why can't we go out" isn't evident on the inside. > To balance the personal with the social and familial is a tough thing > to do in the modern world where choices are increasingly personal > because the personal has a short-termist appeal to the curious. I can't agree with this; personal choices make for brilliant long term thinking. Which to me explains why, in those olden ages, people went off to the mountains to meditate. If you wanted to think longer term, you needed to get out of society which always bound you to the short term.
