Jason Joel Thompson wrote:
>
> > After all, money is important only insofar as it is a means to an end,
> > and if you can short-circuit the process and get at the end itself, who
> > needs money?
>
> Hey, I'm with you... I'd love to get past money. And we will, eventually.
> But I don't think that we can pretend that it isn't currently a tremendously
> powerful thing, and curiosity and respect of peers doesn't put food on the
> table.
This is one of the most popular myths in the artistic/humanities
communities, that we will someday 'get past money', as seen by the
claims of the writers of tv shows like Star Trek: TNG, etc. in their
dialog. Cash money is an incredibly powerful tool, and in this age of
the electronic big brother, is the only true means of maintaining some
semblance of anonymity in your economic transactions (so long as you
yourself don't obtain that cash from a federally insured
bank/thrift/S&L/credit union).
As I have said before, anything that behaves like money, that does the
job of money, is in fact money. "money" is merely a discriptor for a
tool that symbolizes value. "Getting past money" would require a quantum
shift in the perception of all humanity about how important it is that
all/most/large transactions be considered 'fair' in value exchange
between parties. This is essentially requiring the destruction of the
Baysian paradigm.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Oct 02 2000 - 17:35:20 MDT