RE: Meaningless Abstractions

Rick Knight (
Thu, 26 Jun 97 11:11:18 CST

Lee Daniel Crocker asserted:

There is no such thing as "enough" or "plenty"; they are menaingle=
ss abstractions.

Rick Knight replied:
*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 fo=
cus 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.

Daniel then countered:

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.

Rick>> The last statement I concur with. My definitions of enough and
plenty served as a countermeasure to a proliferation of sentiments of what
appear to be avarice and self-centered notions (not on your part, per se,
more a theme that runs with this list).

Daniel>> 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

Rick>> "accusations" is a meaning you ascribe. The tone of your reply to
Mr. Wiser I *interpret* to be abstract and terse and he has rephrased his
query in the latest digest. Hopefully, his revision will engage even more
honest and meaningful responses because I regard it to be an intriguing
mental exercise.

I have no quarrel with you and certainly am not going to expend anymore
energy digging into the semantics to cite precisely where you ran aground
in my opinion. Take it on that you just might be perceived with a less
than congenial attitude in this driest-of-dry communication mediums. My
opinion is not the truth. I won't come and conviscate your computer for
perceived impoliteness. <G> I disagree with the absolutist assertion that
*enough money* is meaningless. Of course, I also envision a world beyond
the market economy paradigm.

IMHO, money still represents a notion of clinging to a survivalist and
individualist mentality and as long as it serves as the medium for one
person having more than another, mimicking natural selection while we, the
privileged species with the opposable thumbs and the developed brain stems
shrug it off as okay (pause, breath) long as it is equated with the
"natural order of things", we are relegated to a world of material-based
angst. Extropian or not, that's hardly an ideal world and I want more.
Perhaps I should classify myself as a Extro-Utopian <G>.

Daniel>> 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.

Rick>> Curious tactic but I respectfully decline. I think we can put this
one to bed and move on to more intriguing long as you're clear
I'm just another harmless guy on a chatty and pontifical digest espousing
anything and everything because it's an amusing distraction and (at times)
an engaging mental exercise.