> "Plase donate some>ideas as to what it is to be successful and how to
> measure it (who was/is more successful: Newton, Mother Teresa, Bill Gates,
> Richard Dawkins, Richard>Brodie, David Rosdeitcher? -- we will have to
> assign a specific number to>each person). Money is probably not the best and
> not the only measure"...">As to objectivism, I believe it will have to be
> based only on questioning..." (from Date: Sun, 14 Sep 1997 00:51:18 -0700,
> To: virus@lucifer.com,From: Tadeusz Niwinski <tad@teta.ai>,Subject: Re:
> virus: Re: The saga continues!)
>
> List,
>
> THE LAW OF VALUE AND WORTH (OF THE INDIVIDUAL IN RELATION TO THE GROUP)
>
> Demand and Supply: One should buy into the group "low" and sell out to the
> group "high"...in order to create a "trust" of symbolic funds (One should
> willingly suspend disbelief in order to create trust).
>
> > "trust"
> individual
> <------------------------->value/worth<--------------------------->group
> (one of many) e pluribus unum
> (many of one)
>
> quantity increases value decreases: value increases quantity decreases
> worth increases quantity decreases: quantity increases worth decreases
>
> Here is an objective measure, "trust"--a proportional quantity of the
> objective measures of "value" and "worth" of the individual in relation to a
> group and of the group in relation to the individual. It shows that
> (finally) the "trust" is independent of either group or individual
> standards. It implies that "success" is also an objective designation which
> manifests where the uniqueness of the individual intersects with the
> sameness of the group--at this point value and worth are entrusted to "god"
> (essence, gestalts) and manifests through the individual (it becomes
> "self-evident"). Which is to say that we could just vote on the proposed
> question (above) "Democratically" and the person who receives the average
> number of votes (neither the most nor the least) is the winner...as long as
> he/she voted "undecided". This person would be the least subjectively
> objective and therefore the most trustworthy (as long as he/she decidedly
> voted undecided).
Let me see whether I have the basic idea here right.
I understand you to be proposing the following as a measure of "success"
for the purpose of comparison of different philosophies:
A combination of the individual's level of trust in the society, and the
other members' level of trust in that individual.
Is this a correct summary?
Eva