worthwhile doings

[clyde]

Kevin;

You wrote (on another thread):

I believe that people should immediately stop wasting their lives doing worthless jobs, etc, and start to apply their lives to doing something worthwhile.

I wonder what, besides "seeking the Truth", you think is worthwhile doing. I wonder if you think there are any worthwhile jobs.

clyde

[Dan Rowden]

Jobs that keep society functioning in a practical way are certainly worthwhile jobs. But it's not simple functionality that is a problem, it's the general values driving it. A person sweeping the floors for the KKK is still doing something wrong.

[Kelly Jones]

My two-bob's worth:

No job is worthwhile unless it's wise, and oriented towards helping wisdom along.

This includes paramedics, meteorologists, electronic engineers, and the like. The reason being is that people with Ph.D.s can belong to death cults and experience no great mental conflict on the matter.

How can one ever ask, "What job is worthwhile?" if one hasn't first asked, "What is ultimately valuable?"

Wisdom or not-wisdom. That's what it comes down to.

If you say that most people don't do any harm, my answer is that if a person does not know how to value rationally, then they're insane. Thus, what they produce is also insane. Most people don't seem to be doing any harm, because Society is so tightly conformisitic to prevent any individualistic activity. Society is only merest shadow of conscious valuing.

Society is crazy overworked buzzes of mindless activity. It is insane.

Wisdom is not that difficult to understand, if one gives it everything. So, we must give it everything.

[sschaula]

12 I, the Teacher, was king over Israel in Jerusalem. 13 I devoted myself to study and to explore by wisdom all that is done under heaven. What a heavy burden God has laid on men! 14 I have seen all the things that are done under the sun; all of them are meaningless, a chasing after the wind.
15 What is twisted cannot be straightened;
what is lacking cannot be counted.

16 I thought to myself, "Look, I have grown and increased in wisdom more than anyone who has ruled over Jerusalem before me; I have experienced much of wisdom and knowledge." 17 Then I applied myself to the understanding of wisdom, and also of madness and folly, but I learned that this, too, is a chasing after the wind.

18 For with much wisdom comes much sorrow;
the more knowledge, the more grief.

-Ecclesiastes 1

A worthwhile job is providing a service for someone which you would like them to provide for you. Lets say there is a starving kid in Africa. If you were a starving kid in Africa, I'm sure you'd like some food. So feeding that kid is a worthwhile job.

If you would like a certain kind of computer, then becoming a computer manufacturer specializing in what you like...that would be a worthwhile job.

But back to this insane talk of having a "wise job": Wisdom is supposed to serve man, man isn't supposed to become subservient to wisdom. That kind of thinking is ridiculous. People that treat wisdom like a virus which they need to spread are the very opposite of wise - they are unconscious.

[Kevin Solway]

Wisdom is supposed to serve man, man isn't supposed to become subservient to wisdom.

This is really a matter of personal choice. If one believes that wisdom is in fact more important than man, then wisdom takes precedence.

[Kelly Jones]

16 I thought to myself, "Look, I have grown and increased in wisdom more than anyone who has ruled over Jerusalem before me; I have experienced much of wisdom and knowledge." 17 Then I applied myself to the understanding of wisdom, and also of madness and folly, but I learned that this, too, is a chasing after the wind.

Reading that, I thought: "Hang on, Solomon reckons he is wiser than any previous rulers of Jerusalem --- and then he applies himself to understanding wisdom. So his original reckoning has to be disregarded, as well as his later one, because he still regards the original one as valid."

In addition, his statement that being wise is impossible (I think that's how 'chasing after the wind' is usually defined) is actually false. It's like saying, "Don't bother trying to be wise, as you'll realise it's ultimately a pointless and futile endeavour". That's plainly wrong, because wisdom enables understanding of the nature of wisdom - which is a point.

What do you think, Scott, about this? Do you reckon all understanding is ultimately to no purpose whatsoever? Or do you value some kinds of knowledge over others?

18 For with much wisdom comes much sorrow;
the more knowledge, the more grief.

I'd rewrite the Bible here to read:

"For with a little wisdom comes much sorrow;
but with complete wisdom comes freedom from suffering."

-

[sschaula]

Kevin,

This is really a matter of personal choice. If one believes that wisdom is in fact more important than man, then wisdom takes precedence.

This is what I see:

"Why do you keep yourself alive, Philosopher, if you value truth above all else?"
"To spread wisdom."
"Why do you spread wisdom?"
"..."

The "..." is unconsciousness revealing itself.

Kelly,

Reading that, I thought: "Hang on, Solomon reckons he is wiser than any previous rulers of Jerusalem --- and then he applies himself to understanding wisdom. So his original reckoning has to be disregarded, as well as his later one, because he still regards the original one as valid."

I don't see why it does.

In addition, his statement that being wise is impossible (I think that's how 'chasing after the wind' is usually defined) is actually false. It's like saying, "Don't bother trying to be wise, as you'll realise it's ultimately a pointless and futile endeavour". That's plainly wrong, because wisdom enables understanding of the nature of wisdom - which is a point.

I think he meant "chasing after the wind" as something which is foolish, not something impossible. But it could mean that, and he would be very right.

Either way, wisdom does enable an understanding of the nature of wisdom, and that's exactly what "the Teacher" was talking about - the nature of wisdom. He was supposedly speaking from a wise POV.

So what are you saying?

What do you think, Scott, about this? Do you reckon all understanding is ultimately to no purpose whatsoever? Or do you value some kinds of knowledge over others?

Who cares what I value? In truth, all understanding is without purpose.

I'd rewrite the Bible here to read:

"For with a little wisdom comes much sorrow;
but with complete wisdom comes freedom from suffering."

You forgot the part where "all fall short of the glory of God". Complete wisdom is impossible.

Not saying the whole Bible is correct, of course. Just saying I'd rather not read your rewritten Bible.

[clyde]

Wisdom has no value apart from man.

[ChochemV2]

I'm not going to say "every" or "any" job can is worthy but I'd say there are quite a few. Our ability to control our surroundings and more efficiently govern those things which are necessary to our individual survival give us the ability to seek wisdom. Growing/raising food, providing clothing, building shelter, and all jobs which are connected to that are worthy, in my opinion. I think our continued growth greatly depends on education (reform at this point, not more of the same), maintaining communication, providing the means to use communication, travel and means for travel, and so on.

The problem with work, as I see it, is that society believes it has inherent value and that everything is run off our own contrived sense of value and fairness. In the past when there wasn't enough of anything to go around, when we were as animals and sharing could mean the difference between eating for a week or a day, then I could understand fairness. But humanity has had the ability to leave behind our programmed obsession with fair distribution of goods for so long it's ridiculous we still obsess over and and obsess to even greater degrees.

[Kelly Jones]

Reading that, I thought: "Hang on, Solomon reckons he is wiser than any previous rulers of Jerusalem --- and then he applies himself to understanding wisdom. So his original reckoning has to be disregarded, as well as his later one, because he still regards the original one as valid."

I don't see why it does.

If a beginner at tennis says he is a master compared to others at playing tennis, and then says he has yet to learn anything about tennis, he really can't say he's a master at tennis, at all. Yet that's what Solomon has done.

That he doesn't admit this makes his statements about wisdom fall flat.

When did he become wise? Before or after he became wise?

I think he meant "chasing after the wind" as something which is foolish, not something impossible. But it could mean that, and he would be very right.

You're clearly not saying that it is impossible to become wise, because you go on to say "wisdom does enable an understanding of the nature of wisdom, and that's exactly what "the Teacher" was talking about - the nature of wisdom. He was supposedly speaking from a wise POV."

Here you admit that wisdom is possible, that it is to a purpose, and is distinguishable from folly.

Is there any problem then, with saying that wisdom is a worthwhile job?

So what are you saying?

Just that wisdom allows one to see that wisdom is ultimately nothing, but like everything else, still exists.

What do you think, Scott, about this? Do you reckon all understanding is ultimately to no purpose whatsoever? Or do you value some kinds of knowledge over others?

Who cares what I value? In truth, all understanding is without purpose.

Not really. An ultimate understanding arises with the unwavering commitment and consistent daily-applied purposefulness, focussed on attaining that understanding. But we can say there's no inherent purpose, or intrinsic intention in the nature of cause and effect.

I'd rewrite the Bible here to read:

"For with a little wisdom comes much sorrow;
but with complete wisdom comes freedom from suffering."

You forgot the part where "all fall short of the glory of God". Complete wisdom is impossible.

What do you mean by "complete wisdom", to know for sure that it is impossible?

If you mean irreversible Buddhahood, that's a whole different story to the truth that wisdom is ultimately nothing.

And, does it really matter if no one can actually sustain perfection? That doesn't make it any less a worthwhile job or goal.

Personally, I find the path to complete sanity a deep joy.

Not saying the whole Bible is correct, of course. Just saying I'd rather not read your rewritten Bible.

Well, why are you reading it, then? The same understanding of my "Bible" is here also.

Really, it won't be more than a few pages. Shouldn't be too hard. :)

-

[bert]

why moan so much,when we can lead a full life...whether as labourer or craftsman - there is no better service to yourself and others - than to enjoy your freedom to choose a passtime or enjoyable activity your own way,making or seeking your creature comforts : generate your own truth and worth without argument, i.e. ,without forcing them on others or allowing others to inflict theirs on you.
but this is a mad world to awake in,robbed of your birthright, freedom measured out,misapplied and seldom trained for our rightfull work...sickenly I could go on.

[DHodges]

Reading that, I thought: "Hang on, Solomon reckons he is wiser than any previous rulers of Jerusalem --- and then he applies himself to understanding wisdom. So his original reckoning has to be disregarded, as well as his later one, because he still regards the original one as valid."

I didn't take the first statement to mean that Solomon was all that wise - just wiser than the previous rulers. Most rulers aren't that interested in wisdom. They were just after the power, where he was wise enough to seek (more) wisdom.

Maybe my thinking on this is simplistic, but it seems to me that the opposite of wisdom is foolishness, and it wise to seek after wisdom, and foolish to seek folly, pretty much by definition.

Personally, I find the path to complete sanity a deep joy.

And it is sane to seek sanity, and crazy not to.

[sschaula]

Kelly,

If a beginner at tennis says he is a master compared to others at playing tennis, and then says he has yet to learn anything about tennis, he really can't say he's a master at tennis, at all. Yet that's what Solomon has done.

That he doesn't admit this makes his statements about wisdom fall flat.

When did he become wise? Before or after he became wise?

I think you're reading too much into the wording. What Dave said regarding this is right...but also if Solomon thought he attained perfect wisdom, it could have just been a bad translation of the passage which caused your confusion.

You're clearly not saying that it is impossible to become wise, because you go on to say "wisdom does enable an understanding of the nature of wisdom, and that's exactly what "the Teacher" was talking about - the nature of wisdom. He was supposedly speaking from a wise POV."

Here you admit that wisdom is possible, that it is to a purpose, and is distinguishable from folly.

Is there any problem then, with saying that wisdom is a worthwhile job?

I didn't admit that being perfectly wise is possible...and if I did, I was wrong.

Wisdom isn't a job. That's a pathetic excuse for being lazy. There may be wise jobs.

It's wise to do good things which make our world better. Spreading wisdom isn't the only wise thing to do.

Just that wisdom allows one to see that wisdom is ultimately nothing, but like everything else, still exists.

So then you agree with the Bible verse I posted, and with me.

Not really. An ultimate understanding arises with the unwavering commitment and consistent daily-applied purposefulness, focussed on attaining that understanding. But we can say there's no inherent purpose, or intrinsic intention in the nature of cause and effect.

Uhh, you may have missed the point...

What do you mean by "complete wisdom", to know for sure that it is impossible?

I mean everyone is foolish, no matter how much wisdom they have.

If you mean irreversible Buddhahood, that's a whole different story to the truth that wisdom is ultimately nothing.

And, does it really matter if no one can actually sustain perfection? That doesn't make it any less a worthwhile job or goal.

Personally, I find the path to complete sanity a deep joy.

Sustain perfection? You must not get it yet. There's no fleeting perfection, even. Not for anyone. There's no complete sanity.

But that's kind of beside the point. The point is that spreading wisdom is a way of life and it's not really a job. A job is how you support your way of life. If you can provide for yourself by spreading wisdom, from donations or something, then you have succeeded as a philosopher. That would definitely be a wise job. If you don't support your way of life by spreading wisdom, then it can't be considered a job.

I play guitar. If I considered that to be my job I'd be foolish. It's just a hobby. I'm somewhat intense about it, so it could even be considered my way of life. But I don't earn money from it.

If I was a hunter-gatherer and I loved to be with my family, I could consider that to be my way of life. But if it was my job, my family would starve. So hunting and gathering would be my job, and being with my family, my way of life.

This should be pretty obvious.

So once again, what is a wise job? It can be the spreading of wisdom, if you're really lucky somehow. Doubt it would happen for many people. Besides that, making the world a safer place, making people healthier, etc...these are all wise jobs, as well.

[sschaula]

Dave,

Maybe my thinking on this is simplistic, but it seems to me that the opposite of wisdom is foolishness, and it wise to seek after wisdom, and foolish to seek folly, pretty much by definition.

I agree with this...but what does a person find regarding wisdom when they gain enough wisdom to comprehend it?

[DHodges]

I mean everyone is foolish, no matter how much wisdom they have.

Isn't it better to focus on whether particular actions, decisions or statements are wise or foolish, rather than focusing on the person? Focusing on the person seems like it will lead directly into ego issues - it then becomes about who is wiser, rather than finding a wise course of action.

So once again, what is a wise job?

There are some jobs that are obviously not wise, and should be avoided. (Don't sell crack to schoolchildren, don't trade in slaves, that sort of thing.) Beyond that, I don't think it's a question someone else can answer for you. It would be wise to seek a job that is a good fit for your talents and abilities, is rewarding in some way, and that, if you don't actually enjoy it, you at least don't mind doing too much.

The wise thing to do, it seems to me, would be to know yourself, and know what jobs there are available, and find the best fit; just go about it in a rational, methodical way.

I play guitar. If I considered that to be my job I'd be foolish. It's just a hobby. I'm somewhat intense about it, so it could even be considered my way of life. But I don't earn money from it.

That's a pretty good example. I play well enough that I could probably make a living off it, I think, or at least I could if I played six hours a day. The best advice I got on the topic is that you should not try to make a living as a musician unless you can't do anything else.

I do think music is something people should do, and not just consume.

but what does a person find regarding wisdom when they gain enough wisdom to comprehend it?

I have no answer; I don't think I understand the question.

[sschaula]

Dave,

Isn't it better to focus on whether particular actions, decisions or statements are wise or foolish, rather than focusing on the person? Focusing on the person seems like it will lead directly into ego issues - it then becomes about who is wiser, rather than finding a wise course of action.

I agree. But it's essential to know that no one can become perfectly wise - that there are simply wise actions or statements made by foolish people. It was an off topic point.

That's a pretty good example. I play well enough that I could probably make a living off it, I think, or at least I could if I played six hours a day. The best advice I got on the topic is that you should not try to make a living as a musician unless you can't do anything else.

I do think music is something people should do, and not just consume.

Probably not much of a living, unless you get lucky and play your cards right. Another off topic point - a good book to read regarding the music industry is "The Musicians Handbook".

[Kelly Jones]

I didn't take the first statement to mean that Solomon was all that wise - just wiser than the previous rulers. Most rulers aren't that interested in wisdom. They were just after the power, where he was wise enough to seek (more) wisdom.

Alright, if we're looking at an incredibly foolish society, then whoever wrote Ecclesiastes is a genius.

To my mind, his wisdom is very meagre, for he says that, since both wise and foolish men die, it is wise just to enjoy life, to drink and be merry. First he says that nothing is worth doing, then he changes his mind and says, it's worth doing nothing much.

So I actually agree with him that his wisdom is worthless. :-)

Maybe my thinking on this is simplistic, but it seems to me that the opposite of wisdom is foolishness, and it wise to seek after wisdom, and foolish to seek folly, pretty much by definition.

Yes, but only in hindsight. A beginner is going purely on luck, since only delusions steer him.

This is why the author of the "Everything is meaningless" - meaning, futile, utterly without effect - drivel cannot be taken as a wise man. A wise man wouldn't say that, since a dead man has no wisdom, and all men die, that it is pointless to become wise.

Kelly: Personally, I find the path to complete sanity a deep joy.

Dave: And it is sane to seek sanity, and crazy not to.

Even though I'm ultimately no different to a dead man, or a foolish man, my purpose of becoming a Buddha makes my sanity meaningful and worthwhile.

-

[Kelly Jones]

I think you're reading too much into the wording.

It is usually a good litmus test for seemingly plausible statements. If they don't crack under any pressure, then they're strong. I like that type of statement.

Scott: I didn't admit that being perfectly wise is possible...and if I did, I was wrong.

[snip]

Kelly: And, does it really matter if no one can actually sustain perfection? That doesn't make it any less a worthwhile job or goal.

Scott: Sustain perfection? You must not get it yet. There's no fleeting perfection, even. Not for anyone. There's no complete sanity.

Let's say a person has an intellectual understanding of Truth, and a very small degree of experience living by it. This person is largely imperfect, meaning, not capable of sustaining egoless thinking.

But, with more faith in reason, they can be more sane than they are. They might become completely sane, meaning, capable of sustaining egolessness. I'd call that perfection of wisdom.

Can you explain why you don't believe that wisdom can be perfected, or sanity made complete?

Wisdom isn't a job. That's a pathetic excuse for being lazy. There may be wise jobs.

It is a job for me, because it is difficult, and requires all my being to do. I am learning with my whole life. How can that not be a full-time job?

It's wise to do good things which make our world better. Spreading wisdom isn't the only wise thing to do.

Well, 'good' and 'better' are relative to a purpose. My purpose is wisdom, so anything helpful relative to this is good and makes the world better.

What purpose are you relating 'good' and 'better' to?

Kelly: Just that wisdom allows one to see that wisdom is ultimately nothing, but like everything else, still exists.

Scott: So then you agree with the Bible verse I posted, and with me.

Perhaps there is some agreement.

Kelly: Not really. An ultimate understanding arises with the unwavering commitment and consistent daily-applied purposefulness, focussed on attaining that understanding. But we can say there's no inherent purpose, or intrinsic intention in the nature of cause and effect.

Scott: Uhh, you may have missed the point...

Please explain your thoughts. I can't read your mind.

Kelly: What do you mean by "complete wisdom", to know for sure that it is impossible?

Scott: I mean everyone is foolish, no matter how much wisdom they have.

It makes no sense whatsoever to say a wise man is by definition foolish.

The point is that spreading wisdom is a way of life and it's not really a job. A job is how you support your way of life. If you can provide for yourself by spreading wisdom, from donations or something, then you have succeeded as a philosopher.

Let's take a young man who expresses an interest in philosophy in a society that applies capital punishment to such interest. By the fact of his love of wisdom, he automatically fails by your standards.

I play guitar. If I considered that to be my job I'd be foolish. It's just a hobby. I'm somewhat intense about it, so it could even be considered my way of life. But I don't earn money from it.

If it was your sole passion, and your whole life was dedicated to playing guitar to undreamt-of standards of excellence, would that be a job? What if no one else was interested in supporting you, and would rather your obsession be neglected?

Now, let's say your life-long passion is saving a very rare and endangered type of leech from extinction, which you believed contained a cure for cancer. No one else could give a damn. So, you had to go out working to support your family, and couldn't save the leech. If only your work could have been supported, and recognised as the valuable job that it was.


-

[sschaula]

Kelly,

It is usually a good litmus test for seemingly plausible statements. If they don't crack under any pressure, then they're strong. I like that type of statement.

That says nothing about the truth of the statement.

Let's say a person has an intellectual understanding of Truth, and a very small degree of experience living by it. This person is largely imperfect, meaning, not capable of sustaining egoless thinking.

But, with more faith in reason, they can be more sane than they are. They might become completely sane, meaning, capable of sustaining egolessness. I'd call that perfection of wisdom.

Can you explain why you don't believe that wisdom can be perfected, or sanity made complete?

Why is because they don't ever become completely sane. No one sustains egolessness.

It is a job for me, because it is difficult, and requires all my being to do. I am learning with my whole life. How can that not be a full-time job?

I really don't see how it requires all of your being to become wise. You might want to become more efficient at that.

Well, 'good' and 'better' are relative to a purpose. My purpose is wisdom, so anything helpful relative to this is good and makes the world better.

What purpose are you relating 'good' and 'better' to?

Wisdom, as well, is relative to a purpose. That was my whole point in the first place. That valuing wisdom is not wise.

It's obvious to any human being what's good, and what's bad. Peace is good. Violence is bad. Happiness is good. Sadness is bad. Pretty simple stuff.

Please explain your thoughts. I can't read your mind.

I said, "all understanding is without purpose." That means: when you finally understand the truth, you find that it wasn't so important to have found the truth. But when you haven't found the truth, it seems that understanding is very valuable. That's because you see that without understanding you're powerless but with it you gain some control over this world.

It makes no sense whatsoever to say a wise man is by definition foolish.

What wise man?

Let's take a young man who expresses an interest in philosophy in a society that applies capital punishment to such interest. By the fact of his love of wisdom, he automatically fails by your standards.

That's right. A person couldn't say that wisdom would be that young man's job.

If it was your sole passion, and your whole life was dedicated to playing guitar to undreamt-of standards of excellence, would that be a job? What if no one else was interested in supporting you, and would rather your obsession be neglected?

It would still not be my job, unless I was making money at it. If I was making 10 bucks each time I played in public, in tips, I would not consider that to be a job. It'd still be more of a hobby. A job is what gets you by in society.

Now, let's say your life-long passion is saving a very rare and endangered type of leech from extinction, which you believed contained a cure for cancer. No one else could give a damn. So, you had to go out working to support your family, and couldn't save the leech. If only your work could have been supported, and recognised as the valuable job that it was.

That may be your work, but it's not your job.

[DHodges]

If it was your sole passion, and your whole life was dedicated to playing guitar to undreamt-of standards of excellence, would that be a job? What if no one else was interested in supporting you, and would rather your obsession be neglected?

For every Steve Morse or Buckethead, there are probably ten thousand guys that play guitar that will never be known.

Kazu Shiba, guitarist from Mad Factory, told me about how in Japan, he worked all day and then would practice four or six hours a night, and he'd be falling asleep at his job. He was obsessive, a perfectionist. He wrote metal tunes, but all he listened to was classical.

He came to America hoping to make it as a guitarist, to become well known. He was very good. He inspired me to play bass at a level I didn't know I was capable of. Eventually he ran out of money and had to go back to Japan.

Life goes on.

Last weekend, I was at a party and this band Class Act was playing - the band is composed entirely of lawyers. The guitar player was just nailing some Santana riffs. Damn! Paid? I don't know, they probably got to drink for free. It's not about that.

Being a lawyer, of course he had a sweet old Gibson Les Paul and a PRS as well. Nice. You won't be able to buy one of those from playing on the street for tips.

[Kelly Jones]

Kelly: It is usually a good litmus test for seemingly plausible statements. If they don't crack under any pressure, then they're strong. I like that type of statement.

Scott: That says nothing about the truth of the statement.

If you really believed that, you wouldn't have responded.

Kelly: Can you explain why you don't believe that wisdom can be perfected, or sanity made complete?

Scott: Why is because they don't ever become completely sane. No one sustains egolessness.

Are you saying unchanging egolessness/sanity/perfect wisdom is logically possible, but difficult?

Kelly: It is a job for me, because it is difficult, and requires all my being to do. I am learning with my whole life. How can that not be a full-time job?

Scott: I really don't see how it requires all of your being to become wise.

It requires all one's being in the sense that every single thought, feeling, action, intention, and belief, needs to become Truth-oriented, if one's purpose is to be Truthful at all.

As you say, the aim is to be more efficient, so that one doesn't keep generating the conflict with consciousness. Which is samsara.

Kelly: Well, 'good' and 'better' are relative to a purpose. My purpose is wisdom, so anything helpful relative to this is good and makes the world better.

What purpose are you relating 'good' and 'better' to?

Scott: Wisdom, as well, is relative to a purpose. That was my whole point in the first place. That valuing wisdom is not wise.

Normally, yes, people tend to believe that things or purposes are inherently valuable and right.

If wisdom is your purpose, then the knowledge that wisdom is not inherently right or wrong, steers one's behaviour. One doesn't have to allow this. One can value forgetting or ignoring wisdom. That's up to the individual.

I continue to value wisdom because the only alternative is boring and unsatisfying to me personally.

It's obvious to any human being what's good, and what's bad. Peace is good. Violence is bad. Happiness is good. Sadness is bad. Pretty simple stuff.

But a moment ago you were saying that it is unwise to value wisdom......? Would it not also be unwise to believe anything is inherently good or bad?

I said, "all understanding is without purpose." That means: when you finally understand the truth, you find that it wasn't so important to have found the truth. But when you haven't found the truth, it seems that understanding is very valuable. That's because you see that without understanding you're powerless but with it you gain some control over this world.

It seems you're equating purpose with having power or control over things. So that it is impossible to have the purpose to be egoless. That is untrue. Even though one never has any power of one's own, being always cause and effect, nevertheless, one still makes plans and carries them out.

Also, as long as delusional thoughts remain, in oneself or in anyone, then egolessness remains a viable purpose.

Kelly: It makes no sense whatsoever to say a wise man is by definition foolish.

Scott: What wise man?

Any individual who realises that the ego is a lie, and why, and lives accordingly - to the best of his ability.

Kelly: Let's take a young man who expresses an interest in philosophy in a society that applies capital punishment to such interest. By the fact of his love of wisdom, he automatically fails by your standards.

Scott: That's right. A person couldn't say that wisdom would be that young man's job.

Yet he may succeed in philosophy, by living as egolessly as he can, and by inspiring others to succeed in philosophy.

Maybe none get enough support to prosper according to mainstream society, yet their wisdom may.

A job is what gets you by in society.

Are you defining "job" to mean social acceptance, or being healthy?

Kelly: Now, let's say your life-long passion is saving a very rare and endangered type of leech from extinction, which you believed contained a cure for cancer. No one else could give a damn. So, you had to go out working to support your family, and couldn't save the leech. If only your work could have been supported, and recognised as the valuable job that it was.

Scott: That may be your work, but it's not your job.

What would you do, in that situation? Would you choose to have a job, or to have work?

-

[Kelly Jones]

Being a lawyer, of course he had a sweet old Gibson Les Paul and a PRS as well. Nice. You won't be able to buy one of those from playing on the street for tips.

I agree that it can be helpful to have money, and that being paid for work often provides money.

But I don't think we're actually talking about money in this thread, but about being valued by others. In our society, people are paid more for upholding the lie that, by believing strongly that women can do as much and more than men, women naturally will achieve as much and more than men. And they are paid less, or nothing, if they do not uphold this lie. So, in such a society, it is false to have a "job" - meaning, as Scott says, to be able to get by in society.

It is just wrong, because one is lying and having no wise cause for lying.

Women, finding that everyone believes they're as good as men, have no reason to strive to realise the belief. Doesn't this, more than anything, show how inferior women are to men, since they don't see the subtext, and simply have no capacity to see any contrast in mental quality?

Of course, I hold these views because I value consciousness. So I believe that valuing the stupid and unconscious as exactly the same as intelligent and conscious is plenty bad.

-

[keenobserver]

12 I, the Teacher, was king over Israel in Jerusalem. 13 I devoted myself to study and to explore by wisdom all that is done under heaven. What a heavy burden God has laid on men! 14 I have seen all the things that are done under the sun; all of them are meaningless, a chasing after the wind.
15 What is twisted cannot be straightened;
what is lacking cannot be counted.

16 I thought to myself, "Look, I have grown and increased in wisdom more than anyone who has ruled over Jerusalem before me; I have experienced much of wisdom and knowledge." 17 Then I applied myself to the understanding of wisdom, and also of madness and folly, but I learned that this, too, is a chasing after the wind.

18 For with much wisdom comes much sorrow;
the more knowledge, the more grief.

-Ecclesiastes 1

He may have been at it just a short time, or had poor teachers, or spent too much time in bed with his many wives. Remember what Jesus said about how hard it is for a rich powerful man to enter the kingdom of heaven. Heaven is not a place of sorrow.

This guy was stuck in purgatory.

[sschaula]

Kelly,

If you really believed that, you wouldn't have responded.

Is that true? No.

Are you saying unchanging egolessness/sanity/perfect wisdom is logically possible, but difficult?

I said it's impossible.

It requires all one's being in the sense that every single thought, feeling, action, intention, and belief, needs to become Truth-oriented, if one's purpose is to be Truthful at all.

As you say, the aim is to be more efficient, so that one doesn't keep generating the conflict with consciousness. Which is samsara.

It's not hard when you actually value truth. Then it's effortless, in the sense that you don't have to change every thought to become more truthful.

It makes me wonder when people say it's challenging. Makes me think they're trying to value wisdom, and not actually valuing it.

Normally, yes, people tend to believe that things or purposes are inherently valuable and right.

If wisdom is your purpose, then the knowledge that wisdom is not inherently right or wrong, steers one's behaviour. One doesn't have to allow this. One can value forgetting or ignoring wisdom. That's up to the individual.

I continue to value wisdom because the only alternative is boring and unsatisfying to me personally.

Things aren't inherently right or wrong. But to us, things are definitely right and wrong.

I don't believe a person can drop their human nature and gain wise nature. I don't believe in a wise nature. I believe in using wisdom as a tool, to refine human nature.

That's why treating wisdom like a virus, and you like the host, is disgusting to me. It's a misconception in my opinion.

But a moment ago you were saying that it is unwise to value wisdom......? Would it not also be unwise to believe anything is inherently good or bad?

What's this "inherently" talk?

It seems you're equating purpose with having power or control over things. So that it is impossible to have the purpose to be egoless. That is untrue. Even though one never has any power of one's own, being always cause and effect, nevertheless, one still makes plans and carries them out.

Also, as long as delusional thoughts remain, in oneself or in anyone, then egolessness remains a viable purpose.

Try and find an egoless person. I guarantee 100% that such a person does not exist.

It is definitely good to get rid of delusion.

Any individual who realises that the ego is a lie, and why, and lives accordingly - to the best of his ability.

Those people all have foolish tendencies, and haven't perfected their wisdom.

Yet he may succeed in philosophy, by living as egolessly as he can, and by inspiring others to succeed in philosophy.

Maybe none get enough support to prosper according to mainstream society, yet their wisdom may.

We were defining what is a "job", and nothing else.

Are you defining "job" to mean social acceptance, or being healthy?

No. Money. How to provide a shelter for yourself, get water, food, clothing, etc.

What would you do, in that situation? Would you choose to have a job, or to have work?

I don't know. If it seemed really likely that the thing could cure cancer, I'd probably choose to work at that and not have a job. I'm not the type of person that needs money.

What does this have to do with what we're discussing?

[Jamesh]

Wisdom has no value apart from man.

I agree.

Everything one experiences will be stored as some form of symbolic value within the brain. A value is a definition. Definitions are truth. All definitions have some form of emotional value system that caused a particular value to be stored (or an existing value altered) in one's brain for that experience. Such values are (potentially) relative to all other values stored in memory. When we experience new things, as all experiences are, then emotions will determine the degree we ask memory to analysis such values.

Truth therefore is an emotional experience - as pre-stored values, together with the current emotional state of the body, determine the "rightness" or "wrongness" of new experiences as they appear in our conscious mind.

As values are emotionally based, dependent on the current chemical state of one's body, then this means both truth and values are transient. Any satisfaction derived from truth, any love or respect of truth, is emotional and transient and therefore empty of meaning that is absolute.

All values are both irrelevant and completely relevant.

They are relevant because as there are no permanent things at all, then all we are can ever be left to deal with are transient things and our memories, which means that we should value things to the degree they might be relevant to our personal future. Our personal future is the only thing of that is of ABSOLUTE importance at all - nothing else is of any absolute nature (apart from physical requirements like air, water etc).

Our future will always be one that is most directly caused by and related to other people, so therefore we should have values that can mix/merge/relate with the values of others, because such values will allow us to live more effectively within this set of most direct causes (the most direct causes that affect us, apart from the physical basics, are the actions of other people, and we have evolved to react to such direct causes in a manner that suits the herd).