Re: Meanlingless Abstractions?
Lee Daniel Crocker (lcrocker@calweb.com)
Thu, 26 Jun 1997 05:05:29 -0700 (PDT)
> Lee Daniel Crocker replied:
> There is no such thing as "enough" or "plenty"; they are menaingless
> abstractions.
>
> *Enough* is when you aren't devoting energy to a particular goal or
> desire. As in full or satiated.
>
> *Plenty* is when you can comfortably/benevolently redirect your focus
> and consider the needs/desires of others or embellish/expand your own.
> As in comfort or even abundance.
>
> I have applied meaning to your absolutist assertion of no meaning and
> request that you devote a modicum of time/energy to address Mr.
> Wiser's question with some respect and consideration. Otherwise, it
> would be more beneficial to simply refrain because credibility
> expressed in the motif you've chosen is seriously lacking.
The topic was money. The word "enough" is certainly useful when
talking about things that can be satiated, like food or sex, or
things that have physical limits (the speed of light is fast enough).
But when the subject is money, I continue to assert that "enough"
cannot be meaningfully applied, because money is by definition that
which one uses to satisfy one's goals, and there is no limit to
goals except failure of imagination.
I answered the questions put honestly, meaningfully, and with some
effort put into the ideas and wording. If you think otherwise,
then please provide evidence or refrain from making baseless
accusations. If you want to attack the ideas, I welcome that,
but to attack my motives shows that your reasoning is too weak to
stand on its own.