Selfishness and Society

[wil]

Originally Posted by Snoopy

I've rumbled you wil; you want to set the record for the most number of replies.

heh heh. Spotted in one.

s.

Namaste Snoop, so how have we done our first week?

Just cause ya didn't rumble me, doesn't mean I wasn't spotted in one.

(still don't know that phraseology, hand in the cookie jar?)

[cyberpi]

Originally Posted by wil

The classic line, no one lies on their death bed saying they wish they spent more time at work.

How would you explain this: Early retirement may mean earlier death.

[Pathless]

Originally Posted by wil

I've contemplated the aspect of living a more focused non material life, and intend to do so on some scale. But the current results of my meditations on the subject indicate that I am put in 3D to experience 3D and all it encompasses. I am feeling all is in divine order and I am making proper preparations for the next plane of existence.

This paragraph got me thinking about the idea of transcendence, of "making proper preparations for the next plane of existence." Rahter than derail this thread more/again, I started a new one over in the Belief section:

http://www.comparative-religion.com/...tml#post145131

[wil]

Originally Posted by cyberpi

How would you explain this: Early retirement may mean earlier death.

They've lost their purpose. Their purpose was to make money, was to raise kids, once done they think they'll relax, golf, cruise the world...but to what end? The study indicates what end.

[Netti-Netti]

Originally Posted by China Cat Sunflower

Why do the institutions of power, that is the church, the government, the education system, want me to be buy into this selflessness stuff? What do they gain from having us all think that we should never insist on our own interest first?

This questions sets up a false dichotomy because self-interest could easily coincide with social interest. A failure to see the connection could compromise both.

Posted by Seattlegal

So they can void the notion of individual rights and conscience, and that we must surrender our power as individuals to them. (All under the fear of 'mob mentality,' of course.)

Offhand, not sure to what extent the mob rule is an issue in a culture of individualism where everybody is off doing their own thing, and being unique and special and exercising their rights to draw attention to their "specialness."

Of late, I have seen very little evidence of mob mentality at work in political government in particular. There is not much in the way of representatives when the government has become the handmaiden to the corporations who underwrote the incumbent politicians' election campaigns and when the population gets to bail out financial corporations who were merely implementing the government's economic policies.

I'd say that under these conditions, which in fact signify the tyranny of the minority, the suggestion that majority rule is something to be fended off would be made principally for propaganda purposes -- i.e., to distract unsuspecting victims from the reality of the situation and fool them about the possibility of having their self-interest compromised when in fact it has already happened. What purpose does it serve except to be able to sucker people some more and have them be unwitting co-conspirators in their own alienation and pauperization?

The illusion created by such propaganda would be complete of the propagandists themselves believed in it. That would mean they are lying to themselves as well as everyone else. That being the case, their propaganda almost becomes forgivable.

[Netti-Netti]

Originally Posted by Netti-Netti

Of late, I have seen very little evidence of mob mentality at work in political government in particular. There is not much in the way of representatives when the government has become the handmaiden to the corporations who underwrote the incumbent politicians' election campaigns and when the population gets to bail out financial corporations who were merely implementing the government's economic policies.

Sorry that should read: "There is not much in the way of representativeness when the government has become handmaiden..."

[paul]

Originally Posted by wil

Face facts, without Bill Gates we would not be having this discussion on this thing called the internet....period. Without someone with the vision of a computer at every desk...nothing Without capitalism, the drive to succeed and be rewarded for efforts...no computer at your finger tips, we'd be flying without a net.

without Bill Gates we may not be having conversations over the internet.
And that's not a bad thing.

It is much better to communicate in person, to have relationships in person, to be in each others company in person, than to be doing what we are doing, this could be done much better in person.

The internet can do nothing better for us than what can be done without it, we can done much greater things without ever using the internet or computers.
Think about it, think about the greatest things we can do and achieve, true fullfilment and happiness, I don't beleive we need to sit behind a computer to achieve any of these things, I think they are found and lived not through a computer but through person to person, through life, and life does not need computers to be lived, and the greatest things to be found in life don't need the use of computers.

I'm not saying in a fallen world we can't use computers, I'm just saying I think we're better off without them than with them, and the real treasures found in life, have not the need of computers, computers or the internet may connect people, and maybe good things can be done through it.
But it's not actually throught the internet or computers, but through people, and I think it may be a sad thing that we feel we have the need of them, when there may be plenty of people living all around us and whom we may meet everyday where we have the oppunrtunity through person to person to form relationships, to comfort, to love, to be here for one another, to change our soceities, ourselves, grow and learn together from each other.

I think all these things can be so much better achieved through people, not through the internet.

[seattlegal]

Originally Posted by Netti-Netti

This questions sets up a false dichotomy because self-interest could easily coincide with social interest. A failure to see the connection could compromise both.


Offhand, not sure to what extent the mob rule is an issue in a culture of individualism where everybody is off doing their own thing, and being unique and special and exercising their rights to draw attention to their "specialness."

Of late, I have seen very little evidence of mob mentality at work in political government in particular. There is not much in the way of representatives when the government has become the handmaiden to the corporations who underwrote the incumbent politicians' election campaigns and when the population gets to bail out financial corporations who were merely implementing the government's economic policies.

I'd say that under these conditions, which in fact signify the tyranny of the minority, the suggestion that majority rule is something to be fended off would be made principally for propaganda purposes -- i.e., to distract unsuspecting victims from the reality of the situation and fool them about the possibility of having their self-interest compromised when in fact it has already happened. What purpose does it serve except to be able to sucker people some more and have them be unwitting co-conspirators in their own alienation and pauperization?

The illusion created by such propaganda would be complete of the propagandists themselves believed in it. That would mean they are lying to themselves as well as everyone else. That being the case, their propaganda almost becomes forgivable.

Corporations are collectives (mobs), are they not?

[paul]

Life doesn't have to be selfish.

I think selfishness only takes us from loving and caring about others.
Yes we can look at ourselves, and we even may hunger or hurt and may have certain needs, and in this even have a certain empathy with others.
But I don't believe good is achieved through purely selfish ambition, good is acheived with the good of others in mind.

If we are solely driven by selfish lusts and greed, I think we may have felt ourselves and seen in others even the results and consequences of such being driven.
It could be maybe with some things of survival that we may be driven, and I think such drive is good than just giving up, but this is basic human survival and not greed and lust which could drive us.

I beleive lust, greed is what overtakes us, and blinds us, or persuades us to disregard the good of others and in favour of following or own lusts.
Surely we can see the evil in such selfishness can't we?
Or do we often fail to see it, or choose to ignore it?

I think we may have lost the meaning of working and learning, they do not have to be selfish, but for us to beable to make our contribution for the good of soceity.

If Jesus was a carpenter then he learnt a trade, from his father, and he was not lazy, and would have contributated to the good of his soceity and would have had the ability to build things for people and would have done so.
Trade may have once been trade, and not about earning selfishly.
If one grows food, another builds, another makes clothing and so on, all are useful and needful, and with the right intention we would do such to provide for others and play our part in contributing.

I beleive Saint Paul may have wrote, I can't remember the context, but I believe he said something along the lines of if one doesn't work then neither should they be given food.
He may have been addressing it to himself, and himself contributing in working with his hands among the people who may have provided him with food and shelter.

[Snoopy]

Originally Posted by wil

Namaste Snoop, so how have we done our first week?

As well as I suspected

Just cause ya didn't rumble me, doesn't mean I wasn't spotted in one.

Er, I did rumble ya and therefore spot you in one!!! Perhaps we could find a common language to communicate in; perhaps Italiano?

(still don't know that phraseology, hand in the cookie jar?)

Cookie? Is that a biscuit?

Have you taken the biscuit?

s.

[cyberpi]

As I say the word: exercise, what comes to mind? The answer reveals to me whether or not a person is selfish.

The fact that a person can do something per their own will while doing something per the will of another person does NOT mean that a person is selfish. Seeking employment or seeking business with others is NOT a selfish act. NEVER. If a person seeks to do things per the will of others then they are NOT being selfish. If a person seeks to do things per their own will and to disregard the will of others then they are selfish. If a person seeks to do things against their own will then they are foolish.

As a person seeks the greatest amount of cash (control of their neighbor) for the least amount of work for their neighbor, or the greatest amount of work from their neighbor for the least amount of cash (giving control to their neighbor)... both are selfish. Back to the beginning... what comes to mind when I say the word: exercise ?

In summary you can seek personal profit to the exclusion of others... or you can seek mutual profit. You can seek to profit others against your own will but I consider it foolish.

[Tao_Equus]

YouTube - Half Man Half Biscuit - Bad Losers On Yahoo Chess - sheff08

[China Cat Sunflower]

Originally Posted by China

Why do the institutions of power, that is the church, the government, the education system, want me to be buy into this selflessness stuff? What do they gain from having us all think that we should never insist on our own interest first?

Originally Posted by Netti

This questions sets up a false dichotomy because self-interest could easily coincide with social interest. A failure to see the connection could compromise both.

Originally Posted by China

What I don't like is the insidious social programming which makes a virtue of self denial, ostensibly for the sake of others, but really just to make the task of institutionally managing the sheeple easier on the bean counters.

What I'm thinking of is altruism as one of the themes within the large narrative that forms our socio-cultural programming. There is always this ideal of noble self sacrifice. If you take a closer look at the icons of altruism through time, perhaps beginning with Jesus Christ and working forward to the latest posthumous Medal of Honor recipient who dived on a grenade to save his buddies lives, you'll see a theme start to emerge. The icons of altruism seem to show up in foundational mythology when a large socio cultural split is about to occur.

Martyrs are the start up capital of movements. Those who emulate the Master by joining in his martyrdom are assured of a place with him in paradise, while the faithful are exhorted by their example to embrace the privations of the struggle as a sacramental badge of subservience to the ideals of the movement. This is how every movement gets up to launch speed. And, looking again at the progression of altruistic icons on a time line and thinking about their relation to each other as a thematic progression in the grand historical narrative, it also seems to be a key element in domestic war time propaganda, both for recruitment and morale as well as civilian pacification. New icons like Pat Tillman and Benazir Bhutto are created and added to the cultural shrine, ...and the beat goes on.

Chris

[paul]

But don't we all have to give a little self sacrifice, a little self denial, be a little selfless in life, in our relationships, isn't this often love?
Or have we become too preoccupied with our own rights, our own freedom in all our desires that it has become all bout self, and giving, in self sacrifice, in love has become why should we, why should we have to give up, sacrifice anything?

[China Cat Sunflower]

Self sacrifice without thought can't be said to be against the wishes of the self. If it comes that naturally it's innate to the self's pristine sense of what's important. Selfishness only exists as a hypothetical state of imbalance in one's priorities. This ultimately stems from not knowing what we really want. I don't think that the confusion comes from the self. The confusion comes from built in biases in the information stream whose purpose it is to sell us ideas and things. Since the true self is not selfish under our working definition, the idea of selfishness has to come from the vested interests sponsoring the information stream. Isn't that a bitch? Binge And Purge Inc.

Chris