Thought for the Day (Dec 3)

Subject: Thought for the Day (Dec 3)
From: Peter T.
Date: 03 Dec 99 - 09:58 AM

The scariest painting in the United States at the moment is not a shark in formaldehyde or a madonna covered in dung, but this painting (sorry, the copy is in black and white) by the Impressionist painter, Edgar Degas, from 1878. It is on a brief loan to the Met in New York from the Calouste Gulbenkian Museum in Lisbon, so if you don't go and see it there in the next 2 months, you will have to go to Portugal sometime. The official title of the painting is Henri Michel-Levy, and it is supposed to be a portrait of a not very talented painter friend of Degas. It does not look very sensational. In reality, it is a thinly disguised painting of Degas himself; and an even more thinly disguised painting of his complex relations with women, models, painting, life.
The figure in the bottom right hand corner is a model's dummy, a stuffed female doll used in 19th century setups for paintings. Degas shows her crumpled and cast aside, while the artist, in his shirt sleeves, looks complacently awkwardly out at the world, surrounded by his pastoral paintings.
Degas' relations with women were notoriously painful. He is recognised as one of the great painters of women -- ballet dancers, washer women, nude bathers, elegant dames -- and was a staunch champion of Mary Cassatt, whom he befriended when she came to Paris. But he seems to have turned misogynist and bitter, for reasons that have never been clearly explained. He never married, and though stories were rampant about his relations with Cassatt and other women of the day -- probably unfounded -- it is clear that he was unable to sustain a loving bond with any of them. He was probably reduced to having sex with his models (mostly poor women of the street) and with women in brothels. His later paintings are agonies of sensuality mingled with voyeurism: the female body just out of reach, but caressable by the extended brush loaded with paint.

The painting is about the painter's strangeness as a human being, and about the way in which his painting both connected him intimately to women, and simultaneously disconnected him from them, and let him cast them aside, all used up. The painter is seen as something of a trapped voyeur: the model dummy is like some 19th century version of the pneumatic women one can buy in porn shops -- a tool, not a real woman. Only the name change protects Degas from the full indictment of his own self-contempt. It is a far harsher attack on his life and work than anything a radical feminist could throw at him. It is calm, and slyly vicious, and every time I look at it, it scares the hell out of me.

Subject: RE: Thought for the Day (Dec 3)
From: Peter T.
Date: 03 Dec 99 - 10:11 AM

Much slower loading colour version hereyours, Peter T.

Subject: RE: Thought for the Day (Dec 3)
From: Mbo
Date: 03 Dec 99 - 10:37 AM

Interesting, Peter! Especially for me, as an art student. Learning about the artist gives you so much more insight about a piece than just staring at it and trying to draw conclusions. Poor Eddie! BTW Peter, I was thinking of doing a quote-of-the-day sort of thing, but I wanted to ask if it was alright with you, because I don't want to encroach on your territory. I have lots of cool quotes and I would really like to share them with you all.

--Mbo

Subject: RE: Thought for the Day (Dec 3)
From: catspaw49
Date: 03 Dec 99 - 10:39 AM

Go ahead Meebo........I'm always in need of material and Waylon Heron is still on the lam.

Spaw

Subject: RE: Thought for the Day (Dec 3)
From: Little Neophyte
Date: 03 Dec 99 - 10:58 AM

I wonder if Degas' inability to have an open, loving intimate relationship with a women is a reflection of his inability to have one with himself.

When I'm disconnected to myself, I'm disconnected to others. Just because I'm present, doesn't mean I've shown up.

Bonnie

Subject: RE: Thought for the Day (Dec 3)
From: Peter T.
Date: 03 Dec 99 - 10:59 AM

Dear Mbo, please feel free, go ahead. It is only my space because I started doing it, and I seem to be able to fill it up with my own musings and obsessions, and people haven't yet told me that I am getting too boring or long-winded (though today is pretty long winded, I must cut back). Katlaughing usually pitches in on weekends with a subtly different flavouring. If you get here before I do in the A.M. start a thread, and if I have to post something to get it out of my system, I will. Can't have too many good thoughts in a day, as far as I can see.
yours, Peter T.

Subject: RE: Thought for the Day (Dec 3)
From: Áine
Date: 03 Dec 99 - 11:09 AM

You're right, Peter -- this is a very frightening image! Thank you for bringing it to our attention and for your thoughtful musings (today and every day, of course!).

I may be just talking through my hat here, but perhaps his problematic relationships with women were due to sexual dysfunction, like ED? When you think about the diet, lifestyle, and general health of men back then, especially the likelihood of SDTs, it doesn't seem out of the question.

Mbo - Now that Peter has given you his consent, I would love to see a 'Quote of the Day' -- I love quotations and proverbs and I'd have a great time reading your threads!

-- Áine

Subject: RE: Thought for the Day (Dec 3)
From: catspaw49
Date: 03 Dec 99 - 11:14 AM

I hate absolutes so.........

Peter, you are boring and long winded. There we go....Now you can say "most people" instead. No absolutes that way and I feel much better.

SONAR: p-ding (REALLY shallow)

Spaw

Subject: RE: Thought for the Day (Dec 3)
From: Little Neophyte
Date: 03 Dec 99 - 11:17 AM

If Peter is boring and long winded,
How would you describe yourself Catspaw?
BB

Subject: RE: Thought for the Day (Dec 3)
From: catspaw49
Date: 03 Dec 99 - 12:01 PM

Incredibly shallow and generally obnoxious.

Spaw

Subject: RE: Thought for the Day (Dec 3)
From: Mbo
Date: 03 Dec 99 - 12:18 PM

Thanks a lot for all you support, everyone! I'm probably post about 5:00 this afternoon, because I have my weekly 2-hour drive coming up in a few minutes. BB, your statement reminds me of RuPaul's "If you can't love yourself, how in the h--- are you gonna love someone else? Can I get an 'Amen' in here?" My mother recently saw a show on the History Channel about Vincent Van Gogh. There's another sad story. We artists are a bad sort, aren't we? Things like that won't happen to me though, because all those artists didn't have the Mudcat Support Group like I have! Thanks!

--Mbo

Subject: RE: Thought for the Day (Dec 3)
From: Little Neophyte
Date: 03 Dec 99 - 12:30 PM

Can someone please tell me what really did happen to Vincent's ear?
BB

Subject: RE: Thought for the Day (Dec 3)
From: Mbo
Date: 03 Dec 99 - 12:36 PM

Hmm...don't know, but "VIncent's Ear" sounds like a good band name!

--Mbo

Subject: RE: Thought for the Day (Dec 3)
From: catspaw49
Date: 03 Dec 99 - 12:43 PM

Did he send it to a past lover to show how serious he was? She got the message obviously that he was completely serious in his love for her because when she opened the package she said, "Oh my! He DOES love me I know. Vin's sincere!"

Spaw

Subject: RE: Thought for the Day (Dec 3)
From: Lonesome EJ
Date: 03 Dec 99 - 12:47 PM

Would a happy and content Degas have created the works of poignant beauty that were his? Is it, perhaps, the longing for the ideal, the seeking of perfection by the imperfect that renders great art possible? It seems that contented and well-adjusted individuals produce primarily comfortable entertainments. It is the extremes at both ends of the artistic spectrum- the Picassos and the Degas' who generate the passion that Great Art demands.

Subject: RE: Thought for the Day (Dec 3)
From: annamill
Date: 03 Dec 99 - 01:35 PM

I'm going to see this for myself! Maybe this weekend.

The boring comment doesn't even deserve a response...

Love, annap

Subject: RE: Thought for the Day (Dec 3)
From: sophocleese
Date: 03 Dec 99 - 02:07 PM

Spaw that was truly an awful joke, I may have to steal it, if you don't mind.

Subject: RE: Thought for the Day (Dec 3)
From: Peter T.
Date: 03 Dec 99 - 02:09 PM

annap, if you do see this at some time, could you let me know through Mudcat if there is a poster or a book of the exhibition? I don't see how I am going to get to see it; so I envy you the chance -- there are also a number of exquisite paintings no one gets a chance to see, the Diereck Bouts' Annunciation, some Manets and others. Gulbenkian was an interesting character -- he cornered the market in Iranian oil after WWI. There is also the Ingres exhibition, which would be unbelievable. Why, oh why, am I not in New York (and I don't even like New York!). yours, Peter

Subject: RE: Thought for the Day (Dec 3)
From: katlaughing
Date: 03 Dec 99 - 04:47 PM

I wonder what Sister Wendy has to say about this one and about Degas is general. Guess I'll have to go see if I can dig a comment or two up. Thanks, Peter, doesn't seem as though he cared for himself much does it? LeeJ, I think you've put your finger on it. I produce much better writing, IMHO, when I am angry, saddened, alone, etc., in short when my life is shit and emotions running high, full of angst and sometiems despair. If anyone heard the symphonies my brother has written and looked at him and his life, they would wonder how something so sublime came out of someone so dysfunctional; gawd! could it be the mark of greatness to be so inept etc.? Reminds me of the Emotional Quotient in lieu of the IQ tests.

katlaughing

Subject: RE: Thought for the Day (Dec 3)
From: thosp
Date: 03 Dec 99 - 04:57 PM

spaw i got it
absolutely NO absolutes never, ever

Subject: RE: Thought for the Day (Dec 3)
From: Lonesome EJ
Date: 03 Dec 99 - 05:59 PM

My God, Catspaw... I just went back and read your second posting. Too think that you would stoop so low, in this otherwise worthwhile discussion, as to poke fun at Van Gogh...well, it's just unheard of.

Subject: RE: Thought for the Day (Dec 3)
From: Neil Lowe
Date: 03 Dec 99 - 06:28 PM

Sarte described it as a "lack."

Subject: RE: Thought for the Day (Dec 3)
From: Little Neophyte
Date: 03 Dec 99 - 07:44 PM

Neil, I don't understand, who is Sarte, and what did you mean?
BB

Subject: RE: Thought for the Day (Dec 3)
From: thosp
Date: 03 Dec 99 - 08:20 PM

Jean-Paul Sartre Jean-Paul Sartre, (1905-1980) born in Paris in 1905, studied at the École Normale Supérieure from 1924 to 1929 and became Professor of Philosophy at Le Havre in 1931. With the help of a stipend from the Institut Français he studied in Berlin (1932) the philosophies of Edmund Husserl and Martin Heidegger. After further teaching at Le Havre, and then in Laon, he taught at the Lycée Pasteur in Paris from 1937 to 1939. Since the end of the Second World War, Sartre has been living as an independent writer.

Sartre is one of those writers for whom a determined philosophical position is the centre of their artistic being. Although drawn from many sources, for example, Husserl's idea of a free, fully intentional consciousness and Heidegger's existentialism, the existentialism Sartre formulated and popularized is profoundly original. Its popularity and that of its author reached a climax in the forties, and Sartre's theoretical writings as well as his novels and plays constitute one of the main inspirational sources of modern literature. In his philosophical view atheism is taken for granted; the "loss of God" is not mourned. Man is condemned to freedom, a freedom from all authority, which he may seek to evade, distort, and deny but which he will have to face if he is to become a moral being. The meaning of man's life is not established before his existence. Once the terrible freedom is acknowledged, man has to make this meaning himself, has to commit himself to a role in this world, has to commit his freedom. And this attempt to make oneself is futile without the "solidarity" of others.

The conclusions a writer must draw from this position were set forth in "Qu'est-ce que la littérature?" (What Is Literature?), 1948: literature is no longer an activity for itself, nor primarily descriptive of characters and situations, but is concerned with human freedom and its (and the author's) commitment. Literature is committed; artistic creation is a moral activity.

While the publication of his early, largely psychological studies, L'Imagination (1936), Esquisse d'une théorie des émotions (Outline of a Theory of the Emotions), 1939, and L'Imaginaire: psychologie phénoménologique de l'imagination (The Psychology of Imagination), 1940, remained relatively unnoticed, Sartre's first novel, La Nausée (Nausea), 1938, and the collection of stories Le Mur (Intimacy), 1938, brought him immediate recognition and success. They dramatically express Sartre's early existentialist themes of alienation and commitment, and of salvation through art.

His central philosophical work, L'Etre et le néant (Being and Nothingness), 1943, is a massive structuralization of his concept of being, from which much of modern existentialism derives. The existentialist humanism which Sartre propagates in his popular essay L'Existentialisme est un humanisme (Existentialism is a Humanism), 1946, can be glimpsed in the series of novels, Les Chemins de la Liberté (The Roads to Freedom), 1945-49.

Sartre is perhaps best known as a playwright. In Les Mouches (The Flies), 1943, the young killer's committed freedom is pitted against the powerless Jupiter, while in Huis Clos (No Exit), 1947, hell emerges as the togetherness of people.

Sartre has engaged extensively in literary critisicm and has written studies on Baudelaire (1947) and Jean Genet (1952). A biography of his childhood, Les Mots (The Words), appeared in 1964.

From Nobel Lectures ,Literature 1901-1967.

Jean-Paul Sartre died in 1980.

Copyright© 1999 The Nobel Foundation

Subject: RE: Thought for the Day (Dec 3)
From: catspaw49
Date: 03 Dec 99 - 08:29 PM

I'm sure Neil means Jean-Paul Sartre...yeah Neil? And if so, he's probably referring to missing personality parts? Neil?

Or maybe he's making reference to my sense of humor.

Spaw

Subject: RE: Thought for the Day (Dec 3)
From: Little Neophyte
Date: 03 Dec 99 - 08:39 PM

Thank you very, very much Thosp.

So lets see if I have this straight.
Basically Sartre is saying, to be a truly free human being you must come to the realization that you are the collective of all human beings.

Isn't that kind of like someone who said,....... I shall not be free until the last living soul on earth is free.

Or like Schindler, from Schinler's List who suffered from the haunting fact that he could have saved just one more.
Just wondering

BB

Subject: RE: Thought for the Day (Dec 3)
From: bunkerhill
Date: 03 Dec 99 - 08:59 PM

Snatch of a poem comes to mind. Can anyone help a memory that fails to come up with author or title (it's about museum guards, "Gray Shades" or something like that)? "Edgar Degas bought an El Greco He kept it by his bed And hung his pants on it While he slept." Re van Gogh's ear: A friend who suffers from Meuniere's syndrome (characterized by ringing in the ears, attacks of dizziness, impaired hearing) says some authorities suggest Van Gogh may have had the same.

Subject: RE: Thought for the Day (Dec 3)
From: Little Neophyte
Date: 03 Dec 99 - 09:18 PM

Now that I've read Thosp posting on Sartre again. Maybe I'm looking at this whole thing too deeply. Maybe Sartre is just saying, "do something with your life, and when you do, make sure the purpose is to contribute something meaningful to other human beings".

Thanks Markf for the clues about Van Gogh's ear.

Catspaw seriously, I once heard Van Gogh cut his ear off for a lover but I have a hard time believing that.

Bonnie

Subject: RE: Thought for the Day (Dec 3)
From: bseed(charleskratz)
Date: 03 Dec 99 - 09:46 PM

Hey, Bonnie--does this thread remind you of anything? It's interesting how sometimes things of dovetail--what I wrote in the Things I Wish Someone Had Told Me thread and Thosp's posting here are kind of a co-inkydink, no?

--seed

Subject: RE: Thought for the Day (Dec 3)
From: Little Neophyte
Date: 03 Dec 99 - 10:12 PM

It sure does Charles. Very interesting. But I still think there is too much guilt being carried when you don't live up to par.

BB

Subject: RE: Thought for the Day (Dec 3)
From: bseed(charleskratz)
Date: 03 Dec 99 - 10:21 PM

Don't worry, BB, it's just my teenaged angst.

--seed

Subject: RE: Thought for the Day (Dec 3)
From: Little Neophyte
Date: 03 Dec 99 - 10:22 PM

OOOPs, when you THINK you don't live up to par.
Sorry Charles

Subject: RE: Thought for the Day (Dec 3)
From: thosp
Date: 04 Dec 99 - 12:32 AM

hi Seed,
after reading your post before last--i went to the other thread to see what you might be refering to--i i think it was this


I think I'm getting a bit better at avoiding the dumb and mean actions. I still have a lot of problems doing all that I should be doing (and I hate to think that Mudcat has been using up a lot of time that should have gone to other things--on the positive side, I think communing with the good folk here has contributed a lot to polishing some of the rough edges of my character--not that I have always been on my best behavior

is this it?


Bonnie
i think sarte was saying -that morally/ethically were born a blank slate - in a sence free of these things--but we confront them in the form of church and civil authority and more --and must/should resolve our relationship with them in our own way --hopefully in a moral way --with a little help from our friends

i may be way off base here -- but i would be interested in others opinions

peace (Y) thosp

Subject: RE: Thought for the Day (Dec 3)
From: Neil Lowe
Date: 04 Dec 99 - 01:03 AM

....I suppose it would be nice in the future if I were to make reference to someone I should at least spell his/her name correctly.....I will write "Sartre" fifty times....I will write "Sartre" fifty times...I will write....

Sartre mused that an artist creates because s/he perceives a "lack" of beauty in the world. The thing created is an attempt to displace the "lack." I always interpreted a "lack" as a void, like a naked corner of a room that begs for adornment. Essentially, Leej's post succinctly and eloquently paraphrased what I thought Sartre was hinting at, and my addendum was an acknowledgement of that.

I suppose within Sartre's construct, then, a painter paints in reaction to visual ugliness; a poet joins words in response to the promulgation of meaningless babble; a composer harnesses the untamed and reckless vibrations heard careening around in space to offset the harsh and baleful noise; and a humorist seeks to fill the tearful pauses with laughter.

Neil

Subject: RE: Thought for the Day (Dec 3)
From: thosp
Date: 04 Dec 99 - 01:24 AM

(1)Sartre
(2)Sartre
(3)Sartre
(4)Sartre
(5)Sartre
(6)Sartre
(7)Sartre
(8)Sartre
(9)Sartre
(10)Sartre
(11)Sartre
(12)Sartre
(13)Sartre
(14)Sartre
(15)Sartre
(16)Sartre
(17)Sartre
(18)Sartre
(19)Sartre
(20)Sartre
(21)Sartre
(22)Sartre
(23)Sartre(24)Sartre
(25)Sartre
(26)Sartre
(27)Sartre
(28)Sartre
(29)Sartre
(30)Sartre
(31)Sartre
(32)Sartre
(33)Sartre
(34)Sartre
(35)Sartre
(36)Sartre
(37)Sartre
(38)Sartre
(39)Sartre
(40)Sartre
(41)Sartre
(42)Sartre
(43)Sartre
(44)Sartre
(45)Sartre
(46)Sartre
(47)Sartre
(48)Sartre
(49)Sartyre
(50)Sartre

peace (Y) thosp

Subject: RE: Thought for the Day (Dec 3)
From: bseed(charleskratz)
Date: 04 Dec 99 - 01:28 AM

Ya really caught it with #49, Thosp.

--seed

Subject: RE: Thought for the Day (Dec 3)
From: thosp
Date: 04 Dec 99 - 01:32 AM

shhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh !!!

Subject: RE: Thought for the Day (Dec 3)
From: catspaw49
Date: 04 Dec 99 - 01:39 AM

Hey thosp....Are you sure you didn't screw up 49 times?

Spaw

Subject: RE: Thought for the Day (Dec 3)
From: thosp
Date: 04 Dec 99 - 01:39 AM

actually thanks Neil -- for your thoughts on S_A_R_T_R_E
peace (Y) thosp

Subject: RE: Thought for the Day (Dec 3)
From: thosp
Date: 04 Dec 99 - 01:42 AM

Spaw--- LOL

Subject: RE: Thought for the Day (Dec 3)
From: bseed(charleskratz)
Date: 04 Dec 99 - 03:54 AM

Thosp, when I read your Sartre post, the thing that grabbed me as familiar, linked to what I had just written, was the ethics without divine prescription. It was very much what I was trying to describe to Bonnie--and Sartre had much to do with my development of my own ethical system, although I see ethics as deriving from the nature of society: social beings MUST have an ethical system in order for the society to survive. And for an individual social being to flourish, the society must flourish; likewise, for the society to flourish, its members must flourish. A society cannot exist unless in general its members are supportive of the society: i.e., each other. Hence the social contract--which dictates that in order for the society to survive, its members must both contribute and benefit--at least to the degree that fosters their contribution. For the work of the society to be accomplished, its members must be able to do the work and they cannot do it if they are lacking in nourishment, shelter, education, health care, and a sense of membership in the society. So "From each according to his ability; to each according to his need." The connection between what I was writing and Sartre also is strengthened by an important fact that the Nobel lecture failed to mention; that Sartre was a Marxist, that he subscribed to the Marxist ethic.

Thanks for asking the question: you've forced me to organize my thinking.

--seed

Subject: RE: Thought for the Day (Dec 3)
From: Jeri
Date: 04 Dec 99 - 10:21 AM

I listened to stories about how miserable artists' lives were and figured that in order to be an artist, I'd have to be miserable as well. Sort of like "you gotta pay your dues if you wanna sing the blues." It seems that for most artists, the creative expression is born out of angst. But I wonder how many of those artists, Degas included, saw their lives as sad. While many were undoubtedly unhappy with certain aspects, I think our ability to judge another's happiness is very small. I look at the photo of Degas' painting and see a man surrounded by reproductions of life instead of life.

Subject: RE: Thought for the Day (Dec 3)
From: catspaw49
Date: 04 Dec 99 - 11:58 AM

Very astute comment Jeri. A lot of times around here we, or at least I, will let a thread die even when the last poster has said something worthwhile. We just go on and never take the time to say how good something is although we may have added some personal "note" in our minds about its author. At least this once, I didn't want to let that happen. I guess in this case what you said relly strikes me as true. Even your perception of the painting strikes me as perhaps more true. Of course that alone probably disqualifies it as having any validity since it is a well known fact that I'm a total cretin with no appreciation for symbolism in art whatsoever. But you do make a fine point! ......at least to me, sorry.

I may as well admit that I was thrown out of an art class in school because the prof wouldn't have me; claimed I was too disruptive to the learning environment and although I passed the exams, I was "much less than serious." He was right of course. Nothing changes.

Spaw

Subject: RE: Thought for the Day (Dec 3)
From: Lonesome EJ
Date: 04 Dec 99 - 01:25 PM

I believe that Sartre's essential philosophical position is that man can be a hero to himself and to his fellow men, regardless of the fact that this heroism exists in a meaningless void, a void which the collapse of belief in a Higher Being has enabled. Thus there is no code of behavior beyond that which Man individually establishes, or that Men agree upon as a civilized construct. Motivation shall no longer be typified by Salvation or Redemption, but by Man reaching within to manifest the best parts of his inborn nature, sometimes in defiance of his immediate urges, often in rebellion against the existing order.

That human beings can live in this fashion presupposes a certain level of ethical maturity that I fear does not exist in the great majority of individuals. As an intellectual, Sartre was a captive to an element of elitism in his philosophy, I believe. OR it may be my basic cynicism that makes me sceptical of the average man's ability to attain this kind of self-imposed transcendence and nobility. Either way, those who would call Existentialism an amoral or anarchistic philosophy are off-target by 180 degrees.

Subject: RE: Thought for the Day (Dec 3)
From: Little Neophyte
Date: 04 Dec 99 - 02:06 PM

Thanks Neil & Lonesome, for your thoughts on Sartre.
Both of you can express your views so beautifully.

Jeri, your insight of Degas helped me understand better what I was trying to formulate in my head.

Personally, I think it would be wise for me to stick to discussions on the Tao's of Pooh.

Bonnie

Subject: RE: Thought for the Day (Dec 3)
From: thosp
Date: 04 Dec 99 - 02:27 PM

thanks Lonesome!
it's very interesting and i agree about the 180 degrees,but i have a thought on the elitist part--- i wonder if it's not so much elitism as being caught up (enthuiastically)in his concepts -- the way a musician might be when composing a new tune?

BB don't get intimadated --(if your interested) get involved--(it's a learning process)after all what would you advise Lil Neo?

Subject: RE: Thought for the Day (Dec 3)
From: catspaw49
Date: 04 Dec 99 - 02:30 PM

Thank you Leej. It was like being back in college and all those nightlong/daylong sessions. Remember? Geez, that wasn't so much a post for me as a flashback. Seems like yesterday and I kinda' miss it. Glad to have found the 'Cat. I feel like I now need to argue the position of Martin Buber and Jacques Ellul as parallel existentialist philosophies.

Gawd I love this place.

Spaw

Subject: RE: Thought for the Day (Dec 3)
From: thosp
Date: 04 Dec 99 - 02:31 PM

and anyway what's the Tao's of Pooh?

Subject: RE: Thought for the Day (Dec 3)
From: thosp
Date: 04 Dec 99 - 02:54 PM

LEJ
rereading, i think i mistook your point about elitism---but even there i think it's the vocabulary not the concepts that are a problem -- but admittedly not the only one--- anyway
peace (Y) thosp

Subject: RE: Thought for the Day (Dec 3)
From: bseed(charleskratz)
Date: 04 Dec 99 - 03:02 PM

Continuing my screed, a society that does not insist that its members give as they can, get as they need, will find that many of its members, particularly those who are severely lacking in any of the basic necessities, fail to develop the sense of participation in the social contract--and fail to develop the allegience to the contract itself. At the other end of the spectrum are those so greatly benefiting from the society that they come to think that they are above the duty to contribute, that their mere existence is contribution enough to warrant them ever greater slices of the societal pie. In reality, the greatest contribution they have to make to society IS their elephantine share of the pie.

But notice that I said in my previous post that society's members should benefit to the degree that it fosters their contribution: many people are clearly motivated to great, creative contributions by the opportunity to enhance their share of the pie--this is how their ultimate contribution is fostered. But, dammit, no one member's contribution is so great that he deserves to accumulate a pieshare greater than that held by a third of all the rest of the membership.

There is another important problem with the way the social contract is interpreted and administered: We are now a global society and cannot escape that fact. All mankind are members of that society: yet ninety-five percent of the world's people are considered by the holders of the big slices of the pie to be not members of the society but resources for exploitation.

--seedignoredbutstillranting