Hi Ben,
Thanks for the reply, I somehow missed this post and
I think I have answered most of it but if not, here
are my thoughts.
Ben Compton wrote: Replying to LO16744 --
> 1- America is rich in culture, to the point of being inclusive of a number
> of cultures, yet it was conceived as a "commerical republic."
I don't agree that the sole purpose of the republic was the ability to
become rich, although that has been a primary part of the myth that many
immigrants coming after the initial influx have said.
The historian Richard Slotkin's prize winning study of American Myths that
motivated expansion entitled "The Fatal Environment, The Myth of the
Frontier in the Age of Industrialization" makes the point that there were
a whole series of myths that served to divert attention from the barbarity
of American business practices. They seemed to be finding any excuse to
call it something other than a "commercial republic." In order to make
management come of age as a legitimate profession they tied it to the myth
of the soldier as late as mid-19th century. Henry Ford used the myth of
religion to justify his dumbing down of the work force for the assembly
line. He called it meditation and took the mind out of the work place and
sent it home. Life was in the home and community. The job made that
possible. That is the root of the term hired hand rather than hired
mind or competence.
> The whole
> point of the American experience was to let humans benefit from the
> efforts of their labor.
"I hear America Singing" Walt Whitman. It was considerably more than
just a good deal. They also didn't consider retail business to be a
particularly high calling. The word "job" and its evolution in the
language shows that it was the civil services, the ministry, medicine,
law, the arts and the academy that represented the American's ideal as a
profession. Commerce was very low on the list of reasons for the
republic.
> I don't see a decline in culture, but rather an
> expansion of cultural ideas. The arts have not become less important to
> Americans. Perhaps the shape and form of art has changed, but it's
> importance is still evident.
Ben, human expression is always crucial but the issue is quality and
whether it is the higher arts and not just sensual expression. The higher
arts carry the messages of what Garcia Lorca called "listening to the
voices of the ancient songs." These songs are not easily understood and
take a life's work to perform and comprehend. They convey the deepest
identity of the culture. They are not elitist as they are sometimes
accused but are learned and mastered by those who have the courage and
committment to confront their identity. You dont get these by virtue of
anything but hard work.
As for expansion of culture:
>From 1,300 opera houses and academies of music in Iowa in 1900 to 1 and
1/2 in the year 2,000. Those immigrants knew and cared about what they
brought to this country from their homes. This cultural "plenty" was
true all over America in the 19th century. The twentieth has been
commercial but as Ned Rorem said, "How can you take anyone seriously
when they brag about not having the skill to read a musical score" as
Paul McCartney did when he "wrote" his "Standing Stone" nonsense. As
Rorem said it was "embarrassing."
> 2- If wealth is principally valuable to myself why are so many people
> interested in how much money I make? The government wants to know my
> income so they can take some of it, and share it with those who have
> done nothing to earn it. (snip)
Ben, let me quote you the definition of "Free Rider" in the Black
Economics Dictionary: FREE RIDER: A person or organization who benefits
from a "public good" but neither provides it nor contributes to the cost
of collective provision. They thus free ride on the efforts of others.
The free-rider problem means that many "public goods are under-provided,
or have to be provided by governments which can collect taxes to pay for
them. The same problem occurs internationally, when governments prefer to
leave others to bear the costs of international institutions to maintain
world security, etc.
"PUBLIC GOODS" are goods that 1. are used without being used up, like
National Defense, public education, police, public concerts, monuments,
the internet etc. 2. it is difficult to impossible to keep people from
using the good or service. A PUBLIC GOOD CANNOT BE PROVIDED FOR PRIVATE
PROFIT. They are often provided by private charities and foundations to
the public from motives of altruism or ostentation. The very expensive
public goods like defense or the internet are provided by governments who
alone have the power to raise the taxes needed to pay for them. Private
industry has begun to move into public goods areas like education, but the
need for business to have a cheap, educated labor pool is at odds with
private costs for education limited only to those who can pay.
You said:
> The basic virtues I enjoy in myself and in others are:
> - Intelligence,
> - Competence
> - Productivity
I would agree if by this you mean:
INTELLIGENCE: The ability to comprehend and plan for the whole of
things.
COMPETENCE: Long term in depth skill that deepens and broadens as one
grows older and more mature, what we call virtuosity in music.
PRODUCTIVITY: I have trouble with this because the two definitions are
so at odds with one another. Which do you mean Economic or Creative?
I would add
COMMITMENT to do the work necessary to develop the highest quality no
matter what the cost.
DISCIPLINE: The courage to see the thing through in order to know the
answer.
> And where these three virtues are found in people, you'll also find
> people who are making a pretty good living.
Some of the greatest minds of the twentieth century have made lousy
livings because they could not charge the worth of their contributions to
society. Garcia-Lorca almost starved in New York and was executed in
Spain. Einstein worked in an office for money as did Melville. Charles
Ives was a wealthy businessman but his composing which is his only real
contribution to American history was stopped by the necessity to earn
money which gave him a nervous breakdown. He never composed again after
the age of forty. Their work effectively was "Public Goods." What did
you think of the last two stanzas of my "Productive Poem?"
America is more Russian in emotion and culture today than anything else.
On the fourth of July you can hear Napoleon defeated in Moscow by the U.S.
Army Band at the Watergate in Washington, D.C. while Ive's American
masterpiece the "Overture to the Fourth of July" lays languishing on the
shelves. Ives said that "Americans wore lace underwear and couldn't stand
up and take a dissonance like a man." I would add that objectivist
economics is also 19th century Russian thought and not in the tradition
of American economic balance between Public and Private goods.
> Wealth (how do you define wealth?) snip...the
> person who has nothing, but these three virtues, will enjoy prosperity.
> The American experiment is living proof of that fact.
It is not important how I define wealth. It is important whether real in
depth creativity is developed in the country. Whether serious educational
thought is developed through experiment and attention to past successes,
whether we can build on the public health successes of the past or whether
we will continue to sell hi-powered anti-biotics in pet shops to build
drug resistant strains of bacteria to kill our children. Whether we will
spend the money to build "star wars" to stop the asteroid rather than a
decrepit "evil empire" production system that fell apart rather than
modernize. And last whether we will be able to survive the end of our
incredible natural resources. The envy of the world. We also will not
always have immigrants to make up for the dearth of our cultural thought
either. Eventually they will find other places to be that demand less and
give more. Then we will find out whether the American experiment was a
success or just a 200 year pillage.
Ben we are so afraid of each other that we think that humans are the
enemies and human thought is omnipotent. Plato said that the Arts would
build perceptions to take us out of the cave of our minds. So we killed
the arts. The high arts in America are nearly dead. Now our inability to
look up to the stars will kill us. Or maybe some Asian country or Russia
will build the machine to destroy that asteroid. But either way, our lack
of imagination and forethought indicates our decline. In order to be
considered a success either your or your artifacts have to last. . The
Romans lasted 1000 years on death as entertainment, the Greeks on their
art and philosophy, either way we have a little way to go.
Regards,
Ray Evans Harrell, artistic director
The Magic Circle Chamber Opera of New York, Inc.
mcore@idt.net
--Ray Evans Harrell <mcore@IDT.NET>
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>