Question for some geniuses on here:

[tek0]

The book got a negative review and it is obviously not too popular.

A shred of insight might be gleened from it if you read it twice while tweaking.

[Carl G]

No other ideas from other members ?

Sorry, man, I was at work when you posted.

[brokenhead]

Doing what interest you and making a living at it is not a meme, whatever that idiotic term is supposed to convey. There's nothing wrong with ambition. Following your ambition makes you what you are. The way you follow it makes you who you are.

Brokenhead, do you think everybody is able to have ambition, I mean one strong enough to get out of the chair and feasible enough to actually chase after without falling of the edge of the world? Can one grow ambition or is one born with it, grows into it somehow? What would be the decisive factor? And what about the fine lines between ambitions, compulsions and obsessions? Is there a certain temperament involved too? Or an ability to get totally into something?

Of course everybody isn't able to have ambition. Infinitethoughts was asking for ways to "neutralize the specific inherited belief pattern, or MEME of, Working for a living." He sees people with plans and doesn't have one himself. I am suggesting it is the wrong approach to try to "neutralize" anything that would get him where he wants to go. "Working for a Living" has gotten many people to a place where they feel fulfilled in what they do.

You talk about ambitions, compulsions, and obsessions as if they are all the same thing with a "fine line" separating them. I guess I just don't see it that way. And yes, there is such a thing as the ability to get totally into something. But maybe it's more a case of finding something that fits.

To which end, here is an idea I took advantage of at one point. There is a local community college that has a career center. For little or no money, you can go through a battery of test and counselling to get a grip on what your strengths and weaknesses might be, if you do not already have a good grasp of that. There might be such a thing near you, infinitethoughts.

[brokenhead]

At that moment their was a distinct tone of amusement for all those boys that I was standing there in a "uniform" doing what I got paid to do.

The "uniform" being the blue tights and the red cape...?

[infinitethoughts]

You may want to start by reading this book:
How to Kill the Job Culture Before it Kills You: Living a Life of Autonomy in a Wage-Slave Society by Claire Wolfe.

Thanks for the tip. Book looks interesting.

[infinitethoughts]

Well thru doing inner questioning on myself I've come up with an answer.

Working for a living is an unquestioned assumption. When I stop and question it, I see that I am assuming I have to go outside my self to gain money.

The way to get rid of the MEME of having to work for a living, is to see that you generate money from inside yourself.

[brokenhead]

Well thru doing inner questioning on myself I've come up with an answer.

Working for a living is an unquestioned assumption. When I stop and question it, I see that I am assuming I have to go outside my self to gain money.

The way to get rid of the MEME of having to work for a living, is to see that you generate money from inside yourself.

Hey, that was fast. Some people never get it.

[Dan Rowden]

How do you neutralize the specific inherited belief pattern, or MEME of, Working for a living?

How does one neutralise any meme? Having read this exchange I'm still not 100% sure if you're working through a philosophical problem here or looking for practical ways to not work to survive. Since the latter rather depends on where you live I'll stick with the former: if you identify a meme as just that - a meme, have you not thereby taken a major step in "neutralising" it? What's left after that? Just drop it! Unless you have a nasty predisposition for dissonance, I don't see what the problem is. There is also the not inconsequential consideration that whilst "working for a living" can be, and obviously is, a meme, it can also, at the very same time, be a practical fact of life. Everyone has to "work" at living in some fashion. It's possible to do that without buying into the material, work ethic meme, which is really just a facet of the broader reality of herdly behaviour and thinking.

Strive for sanity. That's my advice.

[Sage]

I would suggest learning some basic economics. Start with why people work at all, and where wages come from.
I don't think you'll be able to free yourself from work if you don't even know what it is.
The first 20 minutes of this lecture are great:
http://mises.org/multimedia/mp3/block/block3.mp3

[infinitethoughts]

Well thru doing inner questioning on myself I've come up with an answer.

Working for a living is an unquestioned assumption. When I stop and question it, I see that I am assuming I have to go outside my self to gain money.

The way to get rid of the MEME of having to work for a living, is to see that you generate money from inside yourself.

Hey, that was fast. Some people never get it.

Thanks. Also I changed it from generating money, to I am wealth or wealth is a mindset. That helps to make it more user friendly.

[infinitethoughts]

I would suggest learning some basic economics. Start with why people work at all, and where wages come from.
I don't think you'll be able to free yourself from work if you don't even know what it is.

I've thought about this long and hard, (27 years), and now finally am making headway. Why do people work for a living?

Because they have not questioned a base assumption. The base assumpting being, they are not wealth, or a clearer way of saying it is, they don't have a state of mind of being "wealth".

Regarding your concerns about the Economic factor. Of course the entire world will not see this, so there will always be the "slaves" (sad to say) to do the dirty work, which is necessary in todays semi-automatized world.

[Ryan Rudolph]

Infinitethoughts,

I've thought about this long and hard, (27 years), and now finally am making headway. Why do people work for a living?

Because they have not questioned a base assumption. The base assumpting being, they are not wealth, or a clearer way of saying it is, they don't have a state of mind of being "wealth".

Regarding your concerns about the Economic factor. Of course the entire world will not see this, so there will always be the "slaves" (sad to say) to do the dirty work, which is necessary in todays semi-automatized world.

But the fact is that we are all slaves to our daily need for nourishment, slaves to our need for warm shelter for our entire lives, slaves to our need to have access to information, communication, personal hygiene items, slaves to our desire to have resources to grow and mature intellectually, and so on. And technology doesn’t seem to eliminate the need for all labor, it just causes labor to become much more specialized and less physically intensive.

Think about all the specialized tasks that are necessary for you to get up in the morning until late at night… Everything from your chair to the tea you drink everyday is provided by humans who have perfected the art of providing a high quality product to consumers. Labor is based on serving others as a means to serve oneself. It is a give and take relationship. So do you believe that consciousness deserves to be waited on by others in a sort of master/slave relationship? How do you get around this ethical problem? Actually, Humanity would never go for this, and it is impractical to implement.

My view is that labor will always be necessary to some degree, but as civilization grows more technologically advanced, jobs will continue to become less hellish. And as humanity becomes more rational, the demand for goods and services will slow and ease a bit, resulting in a shorter work day. Perhaps a 5-6 hour workday, rather than 8-13 hour workday.

My problem isn’t with labor or jobs as such, it is just the hell that irrational humans make out of labor. It doesn’t have to be such long hours with such unrealistic demands. Moreover, when the job requirement demands are moderate, I find the whole thing quite tolerable, especially if one can humbly work alone doing some specialized task. Whether it be stalking grocery shelves, answering questions about purchasing a computer, writing a collision estimate for a smashed vehicle and so on. Performing a specialized task isn’t all that taxing once the habit has been properly mastered. The problem comes when irrational humans put extra strain, workload and demand on the objectives of the job itself.

It is really human greed, and and a lack of compassion for what humans should be subjected to that makes labor into a worse hell than it needs to be. Even dirty jobs can be done with the right safety gear, and precautions.

[infinitethoughts]

Infinitethoughts,
But the fact is that we are all slaves to our daily need for nourishment,

You are a slave to an unquestioned assumption. The assumption that you are "poor". If you truly learn WHAT you are, this assumption is no longer valid.

So do you believe that consciousness deserves to be waited on by others in a sort of master/slave relationship? How do you get around this ethical problem?

With great difficulty. What does help in this ethical scenario is I know this is all just a game. When we die we go back to what we are, which is Energy that creates its surroundings effortlessly. The game of "Earth" is a 'vacation' from our own Infinity and absolute power.

It is really human greed, and and a lack of compassion for what humans should be subjected to that makes labor into a worse hell than it needs to be. Even dirty jobs can be done with the right safety gear, and precautions.

Greed. Yes I agree. There is no reason to have the 40 hour work week. Technology has been supressed.

[Ryan Rudolph]

Infinitethoughts,

You are a slave to an unquestioned assumption. The assumption that you are "poor". If you truly learn WHAT you are, this assumption is no longer valid.

But realizing that I’m wealthy inwardly doesn’t magically cause two meals a day to appear for me, or a warm bed for me to sleep in, or a computer to use, and so on. But I see what you are saying. I’m not poor inwardly, but the fact is that despite this realization, I’m still poor outwardly, poor in the material world. I'm a slave to needing things. The fact of the matter is that I need a daily supply of goods and services to remain fairly comfortable, so how am I to secure them?

What does help in this ethical scenario is I know this is all just a game. When we die we go back to what we are, which is Energy that creates its surroundings effortlessly. The game of "Earth" is a 'vacation' from our own Infinity and absolute power.

So I have two choices: I can play the game, or behave as if I'm on vacation. Either way, I'm still enlightened. Playing the game will have its series of negative and positive affects, while behaving as if I'm on vacation will have its series of negative and positive affects. Personally, I don't know about you, but I'd prefer to be on vacation.

What about this: Play the game for a short period as a means to have the resources to behave as if one is on vacation.

Greed. Yes I agree. There is no reason to have the 40 hour work week. Technology has been supressed

.

Technology has been suppressed, and moreover humans lack the rationality to live as minimalists. However, companies such as Google and Intel are pouring billions of dollars into solar research, which will have fantastic results.

Cheap, inexpensive energy will drastically drop the price of all goods and services. For instance: Everything requires energy to produce – and so the manufacturing of everything hinges on the price of oil, and that is why Wall Street is so neurotic about the price of oil, and why rich countries are invading weak oil rich dictatorships. The emergence of cheap effective solar energy will totally revolutionize the global economy, bigger than the information tech revolution, and cause cascading affects that will be felt globally.

The three big tsunamis over the horizon: Solar, Advanced NanoTech and then A.I. And A.I will be the kicker… and they’ll probably occur in that order.

[infinitethoughts]

What I'm learning is what I experience is a result of my Assumed world-view.

I’m not poor inwardly, but the fact is that despite this realization, I’m still poor outwardly, poor in the material world.

So if you're still experiencing poverty, then we can deduce that you still have the thought pattern that you are poverty itself.

So then what I would suggest is to question your base assumptions again about What you are.

Are you your own Source, or have you been "created" ? Is wealth "outside" you, is there such a thing as "outside", "inside", etc, etc, etc.

[infinitethoughts]

Ryan.
Here's an interesting experiment.
Take an unquestioned Assumption and examine it.

--Do you believe that you have to do an activity (work) to give yourself something that you already are (wealth) ?

This lead to the next unquestioned assumption. -- What am I?
Do the whole process with that assumption.

(Ask the question in the same format as Work for a living.)

[Ryan Rudolph]

Infinitethoughts,

So if you're still experiencing poverty, then we can deduce that you still have the thought pattern that you are poverty itself.

No, that doesn’t seem like a complete thought. I’m experience poverty outwardly in the sense that I need a constant supply of goods and services to survive, which I don't have, and they won’t be there for me unless I work, beg, steal, or leech off of people or the government. That is the reality. Survival requirements have nothing to do with inward clarity.

So then what I would suggest is to question your base assumptions again about What you are.

What am I? I’m an sentient animal that requires continuous energy to survive. And to get that constant energy, I must give energy. Energy is labor; Energy is money, which is exchanged for a different type of energy that may be more desirable for me. That is the reality. It is how reality works. If I pretend otherwise, I’m deceiving myself. You seem to be living in a magic land of fairies, lollipops and gumdrops!

Are you your own Source, or have you been "created" ? Is wealth "outside" you, is there such a thing as "outside", "inside", etc, etc, etc.

What does this mean exactly? How does being your own source magically cause food and shelter to appear? Are you listening to yourself? How do you generate your own food? By being your own source I suppose? come on, give me a break.

--Do you believe that you have to do an activity (work) to give yourself something that you already are (wealth) ?

Why do you confuse inward clarity with outward survival requirements? The truth is that I must engage in some form of labor for survival purposes. If not, I can steal, beg or leech off another. Survival requires consuming energy, which requires doing tasks repeatedly, Moreover, consuming energy is labor.

[infinitethoughts]

Infinitethoughts,

So if you're still experiencing poverty, then we can deduce that you still have the thought pattern that you are poverty itself.

No, that doesn’t seem like a complete thought. I’m experience poverty outwardly in the sense that I need a constant supply of goods and services to survive, which I don't have, and they won’t be there for me unless I work, beg, steal, or leech off of people or the government. That is the reality. Survival requirements have nothing to do with inward clarity.

Ok thats cool. You believe the outside does not reflect what's goin on inside you. Can't say much more about this then.

[Ryan Rudolph]

Infinite thoughts,

Ok thats cool. You believe the outside does not reflect what's goin on inside you. Can't say much more about this then.

I could say the reverse about you. For instance: Your view inwardly causes a sort of naïve perception of the world outwardly. Do you think that your naïve supernatural idea of “inward wealth” will protect you from the indifferent world of causality? Causality destroys sentience if sentience doesn’t fully understand how reality works. People who fancy supernatural protective notions usually make fatal errors in life because they don't understand the true complexity of reality.

lets recap - you are basically saying that If you realize your own inner wealth, nothing bad will ever happen, one won't have to work for food, and shelter, and things will just take care of themselves, In other words: there is a supernatural power looking over us. but reality is much more indifferent to sentience than that.

yes, inside is the outside, but one tell must take certain actions to survive in the world, and if one wants to be independent, more action is needed. Moreover, It depends on what one desires as far as survival surroundings are concerned. If one is content leeching off others for the entire duration of ones life, then yes, inside is outside, and let us bask in our infinite pool of cosmic fluid. However, if one desires a bit of independence from others, and to make ones own stand in this life, one must research the conditions thoroughly, and live accordingly to basic economic principles.

And to the degree that you participate in the material world, you going to experience a bit of samsara, but as long as you have felt the depth of nirvana, a little bit of samsara is not a problem, it puts hair on your chest...it toughens you up a bit. An enlightened person reaches a stage where they can experience nirvana or a bit of samsara, and they are indifferent to minor negative affects.

Moreover, perhaps in 300 years, when everything is fully automated, and only a small number of intellectuals need to work, then we can all laze around in our bedrooms all day long, reaffirming to each other how the inside is outside, and all the rest of it, but until then, there are things that need to be done.

[infinitethoughts]

Infinite thoughts,

Ok thats cool. You believe the outside does not reflect what's goin on inside you. Can't say much more about this then.

I could say the reverse about you.

You could, and you have.
But lets be clear on one thing. I do not believe in the hooky pooky childish superstition of some "supernatural being taking care of me."

[Ryan Rudolph]

Infinitethoughts,

You could, and you have.
But lets be clear on one thing. I do not believe in the hooky pooky childish superstition of some "supernatural being taking care of me."

Well then, as long we are clear on that, let me ask you this - how do you get around the problem of preserving a state of continuous nirvana, while keeping a steady stream of survival necessities coming in? And how do you do it without being a burden on others? IE: family, government, and so on…

Because you seem to be quite good at criticizing my interest of surviving in the material world, which you consider as some sort of defection from enlightenment path, but what is your alternative to my interest? Maintaining a state of nirvana indefinitely above all else? Such a life would entail being totally dependent on the labor of others for all ones life. I suppose as long as you’re comfortable with that, it is one possible alternative, but not the only one.

[infinitethoughts]

I don't believe in nirvana. I don't believe in enlightenment. The only thing I believe in is viewing reality without filters. This takes work. To work on one's unquestioned assumptions. You're asking what is the alternative and I've posted it before. I'll post it below.

Ryan.
Here's an interesting experiment.
Take an unquestioned Assumption and examine it.

--Do you believe that you have to do an activity (work) to give yourself something that you already are (wealth) ?

This lead to the next unquestioned assumption. -- What am I?
Do the whole process with that assumption.

(Ask the question in the same format as Work for a living.)

[infinitethoughts]

Also here's a clue on what you are:

Realize that if you stop and watch where you thoughts come and go from, you'll realize its an "empty" void.

This then opens up what you are.

[Trevor Salyzyn]

I don't believe in enlightenment. The only thing I believe in is viewing reality without filters.

How do you manage not to believe in enlightenment at the same time as only believing in enlightenment?

[infinitethoughts]

I don't believe in enlightenment. The only thing I believe in is viewing reality without filters.

How do you manage not to believe in enlightenment at the same time as only believing in enlightenment?

You're meaning cause the traditonal definition of it is viewing existance without filters?