Ed Weick wrote:
>
> >
> >Where in our economic system are personal efforts given value? Why can't
> >we place a value on caring for an ill relative or a newborn child or a
> >wild animal.
>
> Why would we want to place a social value on something that is so
> fundamentally personal?
>
> Ed Weick
I would think the beginning of an answer
to this question is fairly "obvious":
To *fund* them. The word: "underwrite" may even evoke connotations
of Winnicott's "holding environment", as welll as of accountancy.
Furthermore, "personal" is not synonymous with "private" (as in
"privation" --> Hannah Arendt's observation that, to the ancient
Greeks, anything that was not part of the shared social sphere was
misfortunate and inappropriate to persons). You have described
actions which foster the "public space" which, in our time,
is largely constituted as a "cash nexus", and which, even
in Rabelais' Abbey of Theleme, has/had to be "paid for" somehow,
lest the person who would care for the child or animal be
prevented from doing so by having to grub for food to ward off
their own imminent incapacitation and death.
As Richard Nixon said: Money does not solve all problems, but
lack of money creates a lot of problems. I believe (unlike
O'Henry's story of the girl with long hair and the
boy with a watch, and other maudlin claptrap) that wealth --
discreetly keeping itself in its proper background role of
facilitating but not intruding on our lives -- is a
fine support for love.
\brad mccormick
--
Mankind is not the master of all the stuff that exists, but
Everyman (woman, child) is a judge of the world.
Brad McCormick, Ed.D. / [EMAIL PROTECTED]
914.238.0788 / 27 Poillon Rd, Chappaqua, NY 10514-3403 USA
-------------------------------------------------------
<![%THINK;[SGML]]> Visit my website ==> http://www.cloud9.net/~bradmcc/
