>>>people occupy themselves without the
>>>necessity (tyranny) of working to insure one�s survival,
>>And that alone is in opposition of reality.
>
>[snip]
>
> basically it's what made communism fail: Marx didn't take into account
>that many people stop working when they see that they get their money even
>when they don't.
Hi All,
I've been biting my tongue and trying to keep uninvolved in this thread
ever since Uli's remark about altruism = egoism; but I can't read further
without offering a few fooleish thoughts:
Not having to work to ensure one's survival is in opposition with one
reality shared by many cultures, especially puritanical and/or
economically-centered ones. (And in truth, it's the primary reality OC
will exist/compete for attention in.)
But it is only one reality experienced at one level of consciousness.
Alan Watts said the secret of life in an economically-centered reality is
to find a way to get paid for playing.
But in other realities or levels of consciousness you/me, God/person,
love/hate, life/death can be seen as inseperable extremes of the same
continuum and the concepts of the altruism/egoism continuum become non
sequitur.
Individual egos are constructed by Totality as means of experiencing
Itself. Our problem is that experiences dominated by physical senses and
the resulting focus on materiality cause most of us to believe we are
seperate from what we are experiencing.
I was born in 1943, and didn't travel to Europe until 1966; so I can hardly
claim expertise as to the failure of Communism. I would say any system
whose philosophy includes the use of force to obtain converts is doomed to
fail eventually.
I think the comment about people stoping to work has more to do with the
weakness (notice I didn't say failure) of the socialistic or welfare state;
but it's also tied inextricably with a cultural bias toward economics as
the ultimate measure of achievement/fulfillment. Perhaps people stopped
working because they found no real corelation between economic prosperity
and a meaningful life?
But probably not. There is a weakness in any social support system that
creates dependency. Some years ago 60 Minutes or some similar show
documented what happened to the quality of life in a South Sea island
fishing community that became totally dependent on US aid. Here's a
personal experience (which I hope people will take as the literal story it
is: after Scott was taken to task over a reference to Nigerians on the HC
List I feel obligated to state there are NO racial overtones): I live in
an area of 300+ acre ranches. I am sure there are at least 100 raccoons
nearby who lead busy industrious lives fishing in the ponds and foraging in
the forests...but not the three who live under my house. They get up about
4 PM and come to the sliding door on the deck to wait to be fed. For the
next 4 to 5 hours they hang around the food dish, coming to lie at the door
and stare at us whenever they feel it's been too long since their dish was
filled. I've created my own small welfare state (including two deer who
sleep on the deck) whose inhabitants may have lost the ability to sustain
themselves in my absence.
So altruism can actually be damaging to the recipient (surprise??...wasn't
it a major justification for the Inquisition?), and in such cases I guess
it must be the epitome of egoism.
Anyway, if you'ld like to understand this is all meaningless because we can
never describe how the world IS, only our best understanding of what it
WAS, I highly recommend "How the World Can be the Way It Is", by Steve
Hagen. (If you have trouble wading through his use of examples from
quantum physics to illustrate principles of Zen, skip to Chapter 10 & the
Epilog). I found "The Fountainhead" insightful in places; but couldn't get
into "Atlas Shrugged" enough to finish it.
Sorry to overstay my time on the soapbox. I'll shoot for brevity next time.
Rob Cozens
http://www.serendipitysoftware.com/who.thml
"Totality is in you;
you are in Totality.
Totality IS you;
You ARE NOT Totality"
.... Hitchiker on Coast Rt. 1 north of Santa Cruz, CA
