Employment is unethical

Discussion of the nature of Ultimate Reality and the path to Enlightenment.
dimasok
Posts: 10
Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2011 12:09 pm

Re: Employment is unethical

Post by dimasok »

It seems you have started from an incorrect presupposition. At the base of this faulty presupposition is a core idea, and this core idea is utterly false: you assume you are free, and you assume you have a 'right' to freedom. Therefore, you can specifiy and argue for all those 'conditions' you wish to place on your country, your city, your world, your universe, your cosmos; or you wish to argue against certain 'conditions' that are part and parcel of your country, your city, your world, your universe, your cosmos.

'Cosmically' and as far as 'the world' goes, it is impossible to argue that you are free. In truth you are utterly conditioned and dependant. There is simply no argument against this. This fact must be accepted. It is intuitively graspable (or should be) with very little reflection or argument. If you HAVE an argument, if an argument is part-and-parcel of your being, your personality, your intellection, etc., to whom do you address your complaint? Scream it to the wind, intone it into the sea herself, climb mountains and wail into the vast open spaces: nothing will change the simple fact that you are utterly a slave, a dependant, conditioned slave.

I suggest that a completely different outlook would necessarily begin to form itself were you to realize at a fundamental level your conditioned and dependant status. Then, a more productive and 'useful' conversation would result.
I could address this complaint to my parents for instance for giving birth to me while "intuitively" grasping what the world was like or society at large for creating such a system that makes no sense and consists of so much inequality and decadence while there are infinitely better alternatives that they will simply not embrace due to the interests of a few.

You seem to think that I don't "intuitively" grasp it, but I do grasp it, I just never accept it! See the difference? I can grasp I am a slave, but will I accept it? Never! And I don't care what the cosmos or society thinks of that. In fact, "suicide" is a great way to send both the cosmos and society home packing! Theoretically speaking of course...

The core idea is entirely correct despite the fact that it goes against the common presuppositions. Otherwise, I would not have the imagination to even consider such an idea in the first place! Since I can conceive of a different presupposition from the one that is "intuitively graspable", that alone makes that presupposition valid and realizable!
Also, "a victor must always speak of how the world should be than how the world is" and I fully stand-by this quote. No matter how "dependant and conditioned" slaves we are, it is our duty to break free of these "self-inflicted" shackles and attain true "freedom"! Hell, as I said, post-singularity even the universe could eventually bow-down to our intelligence!

And one more thing: 'cosmically' we are far less bound and conditioned as we are from the 'as the world goes' perspective. I would say that the iniquities that are imposed upon me from birth are far more restrictive socially (with regards to employment, happiness, health, etc) than the iniquities of the cosmos seen from the perspective of a consciousness: birth, death, lack of meaning or purpose, etc - people become "existentially" depressed because society doesn't take care of their needs and if they can't take care of their needs themselves, society will just laugh at them and call them "weaklings", "leeches" and "parasites". When everything is good in life, existential angst is non-existent the vast majority of the time, but since society likes to screw things over above and beyond the initial conditions that brought the despair, the mind lingers on the issue and it becomes a whole philosophy!

In fact, society takes the initial cosmic conditions and instead of transcending them and making eveyone's lives better, they EXACERBATE them and make the cosmic "evil" THAT much more apparent! So no, don't blame the cosmos for it. Blame it's unfortunate mistake, the human species.

Also, if "nothing will change the simple fact that you are utterly a slave, a dependant, conditioned slave.", then no "productive and 'useful' conversation" can result even in principle. All "productive" and "useful" conversation has to come from trying to transcend the problem, not accepting it and moving on since there is NOWHERE to move on if that presupposition is not challenged and overthrown! Otherwise, we might as well be fried by the next Gamma Ray burst - it would certainly fry that presupposition along with ourselves.
User avatar
Talking Ass
Posts: 846
Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2011 12:20 am

Re: Employment is unethical

Post by Talking Ass »

Unfortunately, I do not think you have grasped the import of my last post.

If you are unhappy in an 'ultimate' sense with the world, the cosmos, with your biological life here, and if you see the culprits as society, or your parents, or the social system, then you have essentially two choices: one, accept it as it is or two, work toward some sort of change that better suits you.

If you think you can fare better outside of society, perhaps you will decide to become some sort of hunter-gatherer like the fellow in the newspaper article? Still, though, you will have to work to survive, and I doubt that the Caveman in that article could also have a partner, a relationship, or a family. But he still has to exert energy, and with that equation he is ipso facto non-free.

Another alternative, a possibility, would be to recognize everything about the present as positive and desirable. You seem to choose to see it as negative and dark. Perhaps you'd like to return to a real horror show, say the European middle-ages or to one of the true despotisms? The way I look at things there are simply complaining types of people. You know, Society and its Discontents and all that. Idealism is a good thing and yet it is the Mother of Dissatisfaction as well.

Finally, another alternative is to redefine your role in relation to 'them' and 'it'. You sound like a victim of 'them' and your own self, your own attitude. Instead you could learn to think and act more like a predator, and I don't mean this in its vile and cruel sense, but rather in its opportunistic sense, its intelligent sense. A predator knows everything about his condition, about the constraints of the system (biological, ecological or social). He knows the movements of things and he knows how to think ahead of his prey. That is in fact what makes him a predator and is the basis of his success. He takes the time to see what other people won't see. And so, instead of being a complaining victim you could turn things around and embrace every aspect of your situation. Every obstacle, an opportunity to prevail (but according to YOUR terms, whatever they are). I don't mean take advantage or manipulate (but I do not rule these out) but to move with the flow of things, ride the wave as it were.
a victor must always speak of how the world should be than how the world is
I imagine this statement comes out of a certain Idealism School, and so it sounds nice, it sounds high-minded. I don't at all deny that it is 'true', or I should say that I'd like to believe this is a good and useful idealism. If one really took this message to heart one would have to really live it by becoming some sort of social activist. That too is a vast work! But I don't get that from what I've read of you so far.

Also, if "nothing will change the simple fact that you are utterly a slave, a dependent, conditioned slave.", then no "productive and 'useful' conversation" can result even in principle.
This is where you misunderstand. 'Human life is conditioned and unfree'. That is a Chinese wisdom-statement. I believe it to be true. And so (according to this wisdom-school) 'we must make ourselves dependent on harmonious and fruitful cycles within nature', and in this way rise up. Our present society, with a plethora of faults, actually allows for many individuals to do just this. It provides a great deal of freedom. It takes a more 'predatorial' mind to see this, to put it to use. In my view, a 'predator' would revel in the possibilities offered by the present.

So, the only conversation I would 'shut down' (in a manner of speaking) is the complaining, whining one. I would open up another conversation to a realistic appraisal of possibilities within a system that offers many, many possibilities. You seem to me to be 'stuck' in a whining phase. How does that feel? Does it work for you?
fiat mihi
dimasok
Posts: 10
Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2011 12:09 pm

Re: Employment is unethical

Post by dimasok »

If you are unhappy in an 'ultimate' sense with the world, the cosmos, with your biological life here, and if you see the culprits as society, or your parents, or the social system, then you have essentially two choices: one, accept it as it is or two, work toward some sort of change that better suits you
No. It's more like either accept it as it is or bow out gracefully (i.e. kill yourself).
If you think you can fare better outside of society, perhaps you will decide to become some sort of hunter-gatherer like the fellow in the newspaper article? Still, though, you will have to work to survive, and I doubt that the Caveman in that article could also have a partner, a relationship, or a family. But he still has to exert energy, and with that equation he is ipso facto non-free.
Nope. Not my cup of tea. I want to live outside of THIS society, not outside of the society that I envision in a much better world.
Another alternative, a possibility, would be to recognize everything about the present as positive and desirable. You seem to choose to see it as negative and dark. Perhaps you'd like to return to a real horror show, say the European middle-ages or to one of the true despotisms? The way I look at things there are simply complaining types of people. You know, Society and its Discontents and all that. Idealism is a good thing and yet it is the Mother of Dissatisfaction as well.
So you think the European middle ages of despotism were worse than what we have right now? Outwardly? maybe. Inwardly? I don't think so. Also, recognizing everything about the present as positive and desirable would only lead to more cognitive dissonance and you know where that leads to to, right? In fact I would say the middle ages were preferable to the abomination of a society that grew out of them.
Finally, another alternative is to redefine your role in relation to 'them' and 'it'. You sound like a victim of 'them' and your own self, your own attitude. Instead you could learn to think and act more like a predator, and I don't mean this in its vile and cruel sense, but rather in its opportunistic sense, its intelligent sense. A predator knows everything about his condition, about the constraints of the system (biological, ecological or social). He knows the movements of things and he knows how to think ahead of his prey. That is in fact what makes him a predator and is the basis of his success. He takes the time to see what other people won't see. And so, instead of being a complaining victim you could turn things around and embrace every aspect of your situation. Every obstacle, an opportunity to prevail (but according to YOUR terms, whatever they are). I don't mean take advantage or manipulate (but I do not rule these out) but to move with the flow of things, ride the wave as it were.
Your analogy of a predator doesn't really sit well with me. You are basically saying to man up and stop whining. Which is the same approach taken by every person who accepts the status quo and whoever is discontent with it they tell him to go and fuck themselves. When you tell me to stop whining and to embrace the situation you are essentially telling me the same thing. By adding a nice pretext of a predator you are merely making a detour from your main point.
I imagine this statement comes out of a certain Idealism School, and so it sounds nice, it sounds high-minded. I don't at all deny that it is 'true', or I should say that I'd like to believe this is a good and useful idealism. If one really took this message to heart one would have to really live it by becoming some sort of social activist. That too is a vast work! But I don't get that from what I've read of you so far.
Social activism is pointless. It's a big, colossal waste of time. These people get ignored and marginalized. Nothing short of a revolution would do and that would come with self-realization. In fact, our species is just too intellectually lethargic to attempt anything as radical as that in our day and age instead pinning their hopes on the marginalized minority who they themselves ignore and laugh at.
This is where you misunderstand. 'Human life is conditioned and unfree'. That is a Chinese wisdom-statement. I believe it to be true. And so (according to this wisdom-school) 'we must make ourselves dependent on harmonious and fruitful cycles within nature', and in this way rise up. Our present society, with a plethora of faults, actually allows for many individuals to do just this. It provides a great deal of freedom. It takes a more 'predatorial' mind to see this, to put it to use. In my view, a 'predator' would revel in the possibilities offered by the present.
Great deal of freedom? where did you find that? within your presupposition of human life being conditioned and unfree you are doing a great disservice to your original assertion by claiming that human being can do something about it as a predator WITHIN the context of that conditioning and lack of freedom. What is required is the abandonment of the whole context of that presupposition and the embracing of a new presupposition that is diametrically opposite to this one. Operating within the framework of the presupposition you propound is impossible due to the inherent limitations and constraints.
So, the only conversation I would 'shut down' (in a manner of speaking) is the complaining, whining one. I would open up another conversation to a realistic appraisal of possibilities within a system that offers many, many possibilities. You seem to me to be 'stuck' in a whining phase. How does that feel? Does it work for you?
Realistic appraisal of a system? you already realistically appraised it before. "Human life is conditioned and unfree" and we are all slaves to the cosmos and to the way society is. What else is there to say? Once you claim something like this, there are no more possibilities and no more appraisal to be done. And this system doesn't offer any opportunities at all, except to those who already have access to these possibilities from the outset.

If I am the one whining here, then you are the one who is rationalizing this horror. Unfortunately, rationalizations of that scale never help anyone, especially not myself. The words of people like Peter Josepth and Jacque Fresco truly inspire me (Zeitgeist movement) while sticking with the system we have and making the best of it does not inspire me in the slightest. In fact, I'd say it's insulting.
Dennis Mahar
Posts: 4082
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:03 pm

Re: Employment is unethical

Post by Dennis Mahar »

The possibility is happiness.

You are deluded dimsok because you fail to realise your misery is caused by craving.

Something happened. A cause.

It would be unlikely for you to be truthful in the matter of 'what happened'.

Did you?
get dumped by a chick?
lose money on the share market?
fail to get rollerskates for Xmas?
get bullied?

Will you be honest?
What happened?
What is it?
How come it became personal?
The point of it!

Tell the truth!
User avatar
Talking Ass
Posts: 846
Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2011 12:20 am

Re: Employment is unethical

Post by Talking Ass »

dimasok wrote:No. It's more like either accept it as it is or bow out gracefully (i.e. kill yourself).
Then I would be forced to suppose this is the ultimate stance that derives from your presuppositions? Your predicates lead you exclusively to this choice. Damn! Ideas have power, they drive us along with their sharp whips...

It is interesting to me that I am describing an orientation that derives from a 'Tragic' viewpoint, and you describe what must result from an Idealistic viewpoint.

Dennis is stuck on this idea that it is even possible not to desire, but it seems 'intuitively obvious' that to desire nothing is an impossibility. It is therefore that a man has to decide WHAT he shall desire. That too (or that especially) would follow from the 'preditorial' position or stance: I will hone and polish my desires. I will make my desires those of a strong, capable, affirmative person. I will take a stance and observe my desires like from a high hill.
So you think the European middle ages of despotism were worse than what we have right now?
It seems pretty clear to me that you haven't lived very close to real, crushing poverty. If you had seen it, and if you'd have recognized how *truly* debilitating and oppressive it is, you would be able to see the myriad of possibilities open to you. Even with your ability to write, to formulate your ideas, to express them: to train you up in that took many, many generations. I am sure that I could make a list of benefits and advantages you have, and ones you could harness for your own and other's benefit. Instead, like some European romantic caught up in a lady-like mood-swing, you opt to put a bullet through your head.
  • The Suicide's Argument by Samuel Coleridge

    Ere the birth of my life, if I wished it or no
    No question was asked me--it could not be so!
    If the life was the question, a thing sent to try
    And to live on be YES; what can NO be? to die.

    Nature's Answer:

    Is't returned, as 'twas sent ? Is't no worse for the wear?
    Think first, what you ARE! Call to mind what you WERE!
    I gave you innocence, I gave you hope,
    Gave health, and genius, and an ample scope,
    Return you me guilt, lethargy, despair?
    Make out the invent'ry ; inspect, compare!
    Then die--if die you dare!
In fact I would say the middle ages were preferable to the abomination of a society that grew out of them.
This must be the season of the deep cynics! We just 'lost' this one dude who spends his life dreaming of nuclear annihilation for all the miscreants...

For the sake of exercise: try to see everything you *hate* in a different light. This dark mood is just a mental pattern. To see it would be a 'predatorial' achievement! You would then be 'hunting' rodent-like aspects of your own self.
Your analogy of a predator doesn't really sit well with me. You are basically saying to man up and stop whining. Which is the same approach taken by every person who accepts the status quo and whoever is discontent with it they tell him to go and fuck themselves. When you tell me to stop whining and to embrace the situation you are essentially telling me the same thing. By adding a nice pretext of a predator you are merely making a detour from your main point.
Why does that not surprise me? When we get into female hissy-fits we blow up everything to these terrible, dramatic points, and then smite anyone who comes forward with some inkling of a *solution*. The best---and the worst---one can do for a person wrapped up in such clownish costumes...is to torture them, poke them, rub their own merde in their face. It is God's gift to the living! ;-)

I am definitely telling you to 'man up'. But I am definitely NOT telling you to accep the status quo. In fact, that is your position to a tee. A man is, according to my definition, the very spirit of (what I mean when I use the term) predator. He looks at things from all angles. He sizes up himself and his options. He knows the terrain. And then he acts. Not as a wimp and a complainer on the rag, but according to his heart's desire; artfully, decisively. From the look of it, you will fill up page after page of your complaining when you know already that your predicates produce ONLY the suicide option. Bob desired communal suicide. You are an improvement insofar as you seem only to desire it for yourself.
Great deal of freedom? where did you find that? within your presupposition of human life being conditioned and unfree you are doing a great disservice to your original assertion by claiming that human being can do something about it as a predator WITHIN the context of that conditioning and lack of freedom. What is required is the abandonment of the whole context of that presupposition and the embracing of a new presupposition that is diametrically opposite to this one. Operating within the framework of the presupposition you propound is impossible due to the inherent limitations and constraints.
One of the mottos of the beatniks was not to try to confront The System, not even to try and change it, but to evade it. We have truly vast 'equipment' and resources at our disposal to evade the system. However, what most people do is to squander their time and resources. They don't know how to employ their precious freedom. I would put you (you evidently put yourself) in that category. Who can pull you out of that hole?

When I say that 'human life is conditioned and unfree' I am saying that as biological entities we have an extremely limited freedom. Do you really want me to spell this out? But, within the limits and the constraints which we know by use of our mind, certain options open up before us. Our social system is one of the biggest ones. You can look upon it as a chain around your (romantic!) neck...or you can see it as a landscape of opportunity. True, the platform is 'tragic' and mortality here is 100%. Yet it is within these parameters that 'this life' takes place. Especially meaningful life.
What else is there to say? Once you claim something like this, there are no more possibilities and no more appraisal to be done.
Well, you may consider it a low blow...but I would use your own terms: time to 'man up'. There are siginficant restraints and limitations, not the least of which is death, but there are many, many possibilities.

For a man. Not for a girlish whiner... ;-)
fiat mihi
eyekwah
Posts: 34
Joined: Thu Sep 22, 2011 11:36 pm

Re: Employment is unethical

Post by eyekwah »

If I may offer a sociological point of view:

Why can't we break the rules of society? Why must everyone work? Why do I have to tear myself out of bed in the morning in order to do something I hate? Thanks to the laws of physics, you have your answer. Entropy is always increasing with time, and as a consequence, you cannot exist without exuding energy in some form whether it be body heat, movement, having sex, etc. This energy must be replenished or, you guessed it, you're worm food.

Now having said that, in a lifespan of roughly 65 years, you will require a great deal of food even to simply continue to be living, much less do anything physical on a daily basis. Take this into consideration and then multiply it by the number of people on our planet. That's a lot of food. Everybody is consuming, and even though not everybody is making the food, somebody has to work so that you get food.

However, we're not all Daniel Boones. These food makers don't normally make every possible food known to man because it's impractical and would yield very little food. So what do they do? They've established a new technology that has long since been forgotten and taken advantage of for so long that nobody even thinks about it anymore: specialization. I grow squash and I'll trade my squash for your beans. I'll carve and cure your pig to stay the winter if you'll give me a small portion to feed my family. I'll give you gold that you can use to give to other people for things in exchange for some of your milk, since I do not have a farm of my own, et cetera. Specialization is the very reason mankind has stopped being nomadic and started farming in the first place. Arguably, without such specialization, we would still be in the stone ages when the men followed herds for meat and the women went gathering for berries in the local forests. My point is, with society's need for food comes a natural desire to either grow the food directly yourself or trade for that food or provide a service which is valued the same as that food that you eat.

Fortunately, we're also a very sociable people, thus if you mean enough to someone to make them trade or provide a service enough so that both of you can be fed, that's good enough. However, in a certain sense, you're still contributing to society, and though you may not be directly contributing, your existence is perhaps valued enough to contribute to the person who's working for you. Even if it's not, people will still likely pull your weight, because it'd be the chimpanzee equivalent of the mother dragging along the crippled young in order not to leave them behind for predators to eat (though on a side note, don't be an ass and drag your weight for others to carry).

All of which comes from the idea that you must do *something* to survive. Even the nomads had to do something to survive and they adopted perhaps the only system outside of specialization that allows your continued survival in the wild. Though things have been improving... Perhaps not in your lifetime, though over the course of generations, things have improved greatly. If you think your life sucks, imagine what it was like in the 1800s. In those days, you often had to know a great deal more than what you specialized in, and you were expected to sweat like a pig in the fields or in the mill where you risked to lose a hand or an eye. So logically speaking, if this continues, the future will be a utopia, and no doubt there will be people during such times that will complain that the prime steak they order for dinner is slightly overcooked.

So to answer your question, what are you working for? Your children's future.
Life is wasted on the living.
Dennis Mahar
Posts: 4082
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:03 pm

Re: Employment is unethical

Post by Dennis Mahar »

Alex,
Dennis is stuck on this idea that it is even possible not to desire, but it seems 'intuitively obvious' that to desire nothing is an impossibility.
You think so?
talkin' about excessive craving.
It is possible to witness like a camera witnesses,
recognise, differentiate and not react.
calm abiding.
what arises, ceases is all that needs to be known.

dimasok has the intelligence to realise samsara is unsatisfactory,
he is reacting to it emotionally.
He desires it should change to suit him.

In that way he is 'fallen'.
He has made it meaningful.
sucked in.
He's giving us nihilism, chapter and verse.
interpretation, emotional reaction.
User avatar
Kunga
Posts: 2333
Joined: Wed Dec 06, 2006 4:04 am
Contact:

Re: Employment is unethical

Post by Kunga »

Sorry I don't have much to add in my own words...my enslavement on earth has destroyed my spirit somewhat.
Here's a little spice for the soup :


http://www.montalk.net/alien/35/synopsi ... aster-plan


"Mankind is being enslaved by non-human forces who are technologically, psychically, and dimensionally superior to us. They consist of multiple factions, spanning multiple dimensions and locations in spacetime, all here to take a slice of the human pie. Their ultimate goal is to assimilate us into their fascist empire and parasitically exploit us for our biological, etheric, and physical resources. Through covert manipulation and hyperdimensional tricks that utilize time travel, they have secretly manipulated and exploited humanity in every way conceivable for tens of thousands of years. We are now seeing their plans overtly manifest with the abduction and hybrid breeding program, and their imminent portrayal as saviors to a human race gone mad with world conflict. If the world accepts them as saviors, individual freedom as we know it will become snuffed like a blown candle, leaving only darkness."
User avatar
Talking Ass
Posts: 846
Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2011 12:20 am

Re: Employment is unethical

Post by Talking Ass »

Possibly my biggest criticism of a style of thinking and perceiving I have noted takes place on these pages is that one that stems from 'monotheism'. I have used the term 'binary-thinking' and other such terms to describe it. I have suggested, and do suggest, that (excuse the once-again reference but QRS are the founders here...) David's philosophy and metaphysic derives from a post-Christian (quite Calvinist) mono-theism and such mono-poled thinking is an attractive, if futile, choice for those of us lost in the swamp of meaning. Grabbing hold of some Absolutism, even if it is a false-absolutism, is better it would seem than drifting in incertainty, suffering all the ravages of modern angst.

So, Dennis, with this in mind I am forced to view your 'philsophy' as an arch-example of this monotheistic imposition. I see how it has captured you, how it possesses you and has its way with you. You are the 'victim' of it and it reduces you to a kind of mechanism, similar to your camera apparatus. Apparently, your whole view-structure is so dominated by this artificial view, this mechanical viweing device, that your human self has simply been swamped. I wonder sometimes if it will ever emerge again...

The problem with monotheism and mono-structures within thought is that, like it or not, we are not singular beings, rather we are plural beings. You may take, take in, hold, fixate upon some Buddhist notions of 'samsara' and the Noble Truths (or what-have-you since Absolutism can be composed of almost any monopolistic views), but I suggest you make a terrible and very costly mistake when you allow the Idea to overwash you, to subsume you, to speak for you, to make you its victim. There is evidence of this sort of thinking all around this forum, of course. But in your case it has gone to extremes.

All ideas and points of view, to be original, to be useful to the individual and not to swamp the individual, have to be tamed and handled by the individual. It is not the Idea that tames and reduces the individual but the individual who tames and makes use of the Idea. Monotheistic thinking tends to produce slaves to an idea-structure, but pluralistic thinking and tendentious, personalized thinking, tends to produce better-rounded individuals. I suggest that taken on the whole the kind of thinking valued on this forum (at least historically) is extreme monotheism, or a style of post-Christian extremist binary thinking. It tends to produce persons and ideas that are fantastically boring, but who can and do endlessly repeat themselves, like machines! With this person and this thinking there seems to be no capacity to learn but only the capacity to 'perfect the rap' so that it can be inflicted with greater efficiency on others. I say this is a failure---a deep and tragic failure---of thinking.
Dennis wrote:It is possible to witness like a camera witnesses,
recognise, differentiate and not react.
Yes, indeed it is. One can also freeze-up within oneself, make colors mono-chrome, and shrivel up and effectively die. It can indeed be done. There are many different things a person can do when he is trapped and possessed by skewed Ideas or bad takes on good ideas. Simply because you (like your camera) are seeing an image you are holding in your mind, does not in any sense mean that this modus or this technique is 'good' for you or for anyone. Still, this in no sense means that having some height and distance from ourselves and the capacity to observe ourselves is a bad thing. Indeed it is not. It does seem to depend on how it is conducted.

The way 'Buddhism' (neo- and pseudo-Buddhism) is presented on these pages is, I suggest, a travesty of a 'genuine Buddhist practice'. It should be about an individual coming into contact with (Buddhist) ideas and synthesizing them with his own self, but not those ideas becoming so dominant and possessing that he is ruled and deformed by them.

Naturally, these ideas of yours proceed from a mono-poled idea-center and for that reason will always sound completely the same. It seems to me like a shrunken way to deal with life.
fiat mihi
User avatar
Talking Ass
Posts: 846
Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2011 12:20 am

Re: Employment is unethical

Post by Talking Ass »

"Among us are numerous advanced souls from higher realms who have incarnated into our world to help destabilize the alien control system and catalyze the evolution of those ready to graduate for the first time. Many don’t remember who they are or where they came from, and from early childhood most are heavily targeted by negative forces for self-destruction due to their threatening roles as system destabilizers. Those who overcome these obstacles grow strong enough to contribute toward the divine plan by spreading knowledge and assisting the evolution of others. They are former prisoners who have come back to show others how to leave the prison. Many of these we might call “positive aliens.” Take note that no one is chosen or special – anyone can take part in the divine plan who chooses to follow his or her heart and seek knowledge."
Interesting metaphysical and mythological idea-system. But it does such a good job of describing the nature of the enslavement, and the means, but doesn't offer enough about the corrollary: invoking the angelical beings, using countervaling thought-forms to defeat the knots of deception. Also, this viewstructure, essentially Christian with 'archons' and a material realm controlled by the Prince of Darkness himself, doesn't seem to articulate the Savior-Hero who must surely be operating behind the scenes to liberate the planet and establish it in the true Federation of Divinely Realized Planets.

  • "A characteristic feature of the Gnostic conception of the universe is the role played in almost all Gnostic systems by the seven world-creating archons, known as the Hebdomad (ἑβδομάς). These Seven are in most systems semi-hostile powers, and are reckoned as the last and lowest emanations of the Godhead; below them—and frequently considered as derived from them—comes the world of the actually devilish powers. There are indeed certain exceptions; Basilides taught the existence of a "great archon" called Abraxas who presided over 365 archons (Irenaeus, Adversus Haereses, i. 24); in the Valentinian system, the Seven are in a manner replaced by the Aeons.

    "The ancient astronomy taught that above the seven planetary spheres was an eighth, the sphere of the fixed stars.[7] In the eighth sphere, these Gnostics taught, dwelt the mother to whom all these archons owed their origin, Sophia (Wisdom) or Barbelo. In the language of these sects the word Hebdomad not only denotes the seven archons, but is also a name of place, denoting the heavenly regions over which the seven archons presided; while Ogdoad denotes the supercelestial regions which lay above their control."


[From: Archon, Wiki ]
fiat mihi
Dennis Mahar
Posts: 4082
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:03 pm

Re: Employment is unethical

Post by Dennis Mahar »

Alex,
Naturally, these ideas of yours proceed from a mono-poled idea-center and for that reason will always sound completely the same. It seems to me like a shrunken way to deal with life.
It looks like your 5 or 6 years of unrelenting attack on all things QRS stems from a mono-poled idea center and a shrunken way to deal with life.

Are you kidding?
You can't pull that crap can you?
As a response?

What happened to set you up that way?
Why the animosity?
User avatar
Talking Ass
Posts: 846
Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2011 12:20 am

Re: Employment is unethical

Post by Talking Ass »

But Dennis, you're just flinging back at me the content of my own criticism. Yet my critique of 'all things QRS' has been not an attempt to critique on the basis of a mono-pole, but a wide-ranging exploration of a very wide-ranging group of ideas---from philosophy and religion to psychology and poetry and from seriousness to satire. There is nothing 'shrunken'out in this approach. It opens up and allows for multivalent perspectives.

I don't think you can really grasp what I am trying to point out. I wonder if you ever will.
fiat mihi
Dennis Mahar
Posts: 4082
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:03 pm

Re: Employment is unethical

Post by Dennis Mahar »

Where's the breakthrough in it?
Where's the radical transformation in it?
What is the point of it?
Entertainment?
Silly buggers?
User avatar
Talking Ass
Posts: 846
Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2011 12:20 am

Re: Employment is unethical

Post by Talking Ass »

Breakthrough? From what to what? Speak about 'breakthroughs'.

Transformations? From what to what? Speak about 'transformation'.

Points? What 'points'?

I would imagine that down inside these ideas---whatever they mean for you---you will find the 'presiding god'.
fiat mihi
Dennis Mahar
Posts: 4082
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:03 pm

Re: Employment is unethical

Post by Dennis Mahar »

A breakdown is a style of conversation you and I have that is a zero sum game or tit for tat.
A breakthrough is recognising that and getting off it.
You have to be honest now.
What are you actually up to?

A radical transformation is realising 'emptiness',
that no person or thing is self-established.
That what arises ceases.
That all persons and things are like prisoners on death row, doing time.
There is no point to bickering, arguing, fighting, liking, disliking, accepting, resigning, attaching, panicking, complaining, railing against.
Reaction is uncalled for, unnecessary, silly and tiring.
User avatar
Talking Ass
Posts: 846
Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2011 12:20 am

Re: Employment is unethical

Post by Talking Ass »

I don't see you 'conversing' with anyone, ever. My impression is there is no content at all in your writing, and in your thoughts. It is an endless repeating of some partial ideas you've picked up somewhere. They appear to be 'Buddhist', yet whatever they are, they seem a study in reductionism. It would seem that by you every aspect of life is reduced...to some group of catch-words with a 'Buddhist' twang. You have never appeared here as a person. What appears here is a bad poem, an excruciating poem. It is repeated from post to post, from thread to thread, and from the look of it from year to year. Maybe you will reincarnate as a verbal mechanism in a world of ever-repeating movement, infinitely grating, like chattering teeth in a steel universe? If in realizing 'emptiness' I shall turn into a tin-coated dharma-parrot who creaks on about 'emptiness' with long strings of mechanical gerunds, I'd immediately run back to the fullness of Kamala's pussy for refuge. Then, I'd hunt you down and muzzle you. Or perhaps I'd stuff you? Yes, I'd stuff you and then install a playback mechanism with a string you pull:

"It's empty & meaningless! It's empty & meaningless! Help! It's empty & meaningless!"

;-)
fiat mihi
Dennis Mahar
Posts: 4082
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:03 pm

Re: Employment is unethical

Post by Dennis Mahar »

That's better.
That piece somehow conveys the hollow, mechanical nature of things, of how it really is.
Except that there's no malice in it...it's neutral.
You might be starting to get it at last, keep going lad.
User avatar
Nick
Posts: 1677
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2005 8:39 pm
Location: Detroit, Michigan

Re: Employment is unethical

Post by Nick »

eyekwah wrote:However, we're not all Daniel Boones. These food makers don't normally make every possible food known to man because it's impractical and would yield very little food. So what do they do? They've established a new technology that has long since been forgotten and taken advantage of for so long that nobody even thinks about it anymore: specialization. I grow squash and I'll trade my squash for your beans. I'll carve and cure your pig to stay the winter if you'll give me a small portion to feed my family. I'll give you gold that you can use to give to other people for things in exchange for some of your milk, since I do not have a farm of my own, et cetera. Specialization is the very reason mankind has stopped being nomadic and started farming in the first place. Arguably, without such specialization, we would still be in the stone ages when the men followed herds for meat and the women went gathering for berries in the local forests. My point is, with society's need for food comes a natural desire to either grow the food directly yourself or trade for that food or provide a service which is valued the same as that food that you eat.
I'm not sure what this has to do with today's society, but here in the United States only about 2.5% of workers use their labor power to harvest, slaughter, and process food. This didn't happen because of specialization, it happened because of industrialization and mechanization of the productive forces.

Specialization in modern times bares little resemblance to what you described above. It's more like one person laces and stitches Nike shoes in Vietnam for 26 cents an hour for 11 hours a day, and another person boxes the shoes in Cambodia for the same pay and the same amount of time, and they perform this labor under the thumb of slave driving boss. It's quite literally hell on Earth for these people. For Nike CEOs and investors it's a beautiful thing though because they sell those shoes in the west for $120 a pair, allowing them to profit immensely on the backs of those workers. It's not much different anywhere else around the world for people working in jobs like these. Sometimes people get paid a little more depending on what the minimum wage is in their country, and some times the workplace protections are a little better. But workers all over the world are subject to the same miserable conditions of wage slavery under capitalism.

That said, I don't think specialization is Dimasok's biggest gripe. Its the coercive and soul crushing conditions that people perform their labor under for little pay that he doesn't seem to like very much, and neither do I.

Here's an interesting article on the top cause of workplace sickness in the 21st century.
Dennis Mahar
Posts: 4082
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:03 pm

Re: Employment is unethical

Post by Dennis Mahar »

That said, I don't think specialization is Dimasok's biggest gripe. Its the coercive and soul crushing conditions that people perform their labor under for little pay that he doesn't seem to like very much, and neither do I.
You provide the meaning.
You make it mean what it means.
Taking the appearance as 'thing in itself'.
Giving it truth.
truth for dummies.
the machinery of craving pleasure, hating pain.
and so it goes...
eyekwah
Posts: 34
Joined: Thu Sep 22, 2011 11:36 pm

Re: Employment is unethical

Post by eyekwah »

I'm not sure what this has to do with today's society, but here in the United States only about 2.5% of workers use their labor power to harvest, slaughter, and process food. This didn't happen because of specialization, it happened because of industrialization and mechanization of the productive forces...
That's how it started. I only meant to logically explain the reasons for various economic stages throughout history due to the necessity. Perhaps now we have large mechanical robot arms to mass produce products, but at least during a rather large section of our history has been spent doing the equivalent of "making nike shoes" for pennies a day, except it wasn't nike shoes but making hats with mercury and shaping raw iron with a hammer and a forge to produce shovels.

Industrialization, when you think about it, is simply the process of using technology to mass produce what you could already do. In other words, the bakery your parents owned where they worked hard every morning to produce fresh bread everyday gets "industrialized" so that no longer is it done by hand but the process is mechanized by simply adding the necessary ingredients into a mixing machine and hitting a button. Ultimately, it's the same thing. What changes is quantity, not quality.

Decrease in farming is due to such industrialization because better yields makes competition difficult because there's too *much* food to go around. It essentially levels off until the % of farmers feeds everyone else and little more.
Life is wasted on the living.
Locked