It's hardly a 'good old days' sentiment. I'm just saying that there is much more organized, funded effort to control masses through media i.e. commercial television, selling you things you don't need, Fox propaganda masquerading as a news network, campaigns totally directed by private PAC money. Why do you think the idea that raising taxes on the rich is so controversial when 99% of the people would actually benefit from it? It's because the 1% controls that message. You think "there is a whole new outlet for independent thought", but it is so much easier to get work done when someone is willing to pay for it. Most of the independent thought is people working for free or peanuts. Where there might be a few individuals working for transparency, a PAC or corporation might employ a hundred people to overwhelm their opinion. There might be a huge boiler room in Mumbai full of Basso bots, posting cut and paste conservative talking points everywhere. I'm not paranoid, I'm just aware of the new reality, that reality can be constructed, or at least directed. And, that corporations spend money to make money. The whole point of corporations is to make money, without moral consideration or patriotism, other than what is calculated to maximize the return, basically just avoiding prosecution and maintaining a sell-able image. Environmental concerns be damned, domestic jobs be damned, long term sustainability be damned. If you don't think that's true, then why do we still have a dominant coal industry, why do we still make 10 mpg cars, why do we have advertisements every night for Restless leg Syndrome drugs, why is ketchup a vegetable, why is pot illegal, why are there only two political parties, both funded by the same corporate money?
I don't think we are dumber, we are actually smarter in some ways, but we are more fragmented as a society and also more self-centered.
To some extent, yes. Why in the hell would anyone memorize how to do complex mathematics when a few simple strokes of a calculator will do it for you. That's just an example. And for dating, most definitely. I don't even know how to find a female to date anymore without the Internet. I know I'm not the only one.
This very idea is a real pet peeve of mine. It's like when someone says, "In your opinion." Of course it's my opinion if I said it; who else's opinion should it be?" We are all entirely self-centered because our entire experience is through the lens of our selves. No one can be anything but self-centered. Think about the word: it puts the self at the center. Is your self (anyone - not picking on judoka) not at your center? If not, see a doctor. The idea that humility or selflessness is the ideal is the flip side of this crazy-making idea. It teaches us that we ought always walk with our heads bowed lest we succumb to the evils of pride or (gasp) hubris. Think, really think, about the idea that the goal would be to be selfless. Think about the word. It means without a self. Yes, we are self-centered. Not more, not less. Just self-centered. That's as it should be.
Inasmuch as true selflessness is probably unattainable, I see nothing wrong with making it a goal. Actually, I'd argue it can make your "self" a far better person.
I enter into evidence Exhibits 1a and 1b. http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showthread.php?t=213927 http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showthread.php?t=213912
I'd argue it subjugates the self and leads to guilt and other unhealthy feelings. I understand that is not the dominant paradigm, but I believe we can do a much better job of caring for and about others if we are free to also indulge in caring for and about our selfs [no sic] and further to not consider such a thing an indulgence. On this day in particular it is worthwhile noting that by most accounts MLK was extremely depressive, attempted suicide as a teen and had suicidal ideation as an adult. Gandhi's depression and suicidality was even more pronounced. They did not only do a great job of caring for the well-being of others; they did it at great expense to the caring of themselves. I think selflessness (again, break down the word and really think about it freshly) is a very unhealthy, very dangerous goal.
I don't agree with your conclusion per say, but this is good food for thought. I fundamentally don't like the idea of ceasing to exist as myself (selflessness), but I'm not above saying that those who attempt such are better people than me, typically. There's a balance in there somewhere.
I'm not even certain of my own beliefs on this matter, it's just something that's been on my mind, largely as a result of having been in extensive Jungian analysis for the last two years or more. I no longer question paradigms out of a need to be counter to the culture but I do question them. I think Leave it to Beaver and The Brady Bunch **** kids up and those kids grown up to be ****ed up adults and those adults are most of us. This is like that to me. However, I am very drawn to Buddhism and my crude understanding of it seems to involve a different sort of selflessness. Not one akin to the Dylan quote "I made shoes for everyone, even you, and I still go barefoot," but a more zen idea of existing as one with the universe. It's words like self-involved, self-absorbed, solipsistic, megalomaniac, narcissist that I find harmful to esteem of self, which I think is a necessary thing to be healthy.
In my readings (Paging Judoka or Max...) I think I've seen a selflessness that is less about radical altruism/martyrdom for others and more about recognizing the distinction between ego and identity. Inasmuch as ego is a manifestation of self based on the perceptions of others or social constructs, it's damaging to your "self". Accordingly, foregoing your "self" is really about shedding the ego. So, perhaps it's less about selflessness and more about becoming self-aware (identity), and then realizing that the self (ego) does not matter. Meandering reply, I know. These sorts of questions get me all twisted.
Ah yes, I can get with that. I will now attempt to rep you but I fear I have probably repped you too much already. Don't let it inflate your (immaterial) ego.
You are basically correct about "selflessness" in the Buddhist sense. It is about understanding that the idea of self is an illusion and just a construct of your own ego when you are really part of something larger. In regard to BJ's comments I think you are reading way more into my statement. I am not saying that one shouldn't have self-esteem or that we should all bow our heads down in humility (although more humility wouldn't hurt). What I am saying is that our politics, economy and culture have become much more fragmented and focused on personal and interest groups rather than considering society as a whole. Objectivism is about the upholding the individual as the end all and be all of civilization and we have seen that idea strongly influence our politics lately. I am not saying that we should instead become an Orwellian state that suppresses individuality for the interests of the whole but that we shouldn't be a Randian state and we need to move back from that idea. I think we need balance between individual aspirations and wants with being part of a community.
I wouldn't call for total selflessness, rather I think there's improvement to be more grounded and self aware of the world around us. How we fill that void in ourselves is anyones guess. I just don't think buying or spending as either the cure or crutch is a very good solution (even if it does feel awesome time to time). That pursuit alone requires some form of intelligence to accomplish. The "stupidity" witnessed seems to be a cry or sign of stunted individual growth. And I don't mean the last part to make myself feel smarter or better. It's just you see something missing in some people you come across or witness, and sometimes you can't describe what is missing, so one might label it as dumb.
That is a great point. Let me give a more concrete example of what I mean. In previous times of war there has been a call for communal sacrifice but in the last two wars there have been few calls for communal sacrifice and even moves to reduce communal sacrifice through tax cuts. In that sense our politics and economy are driven by a lack of awareness of the need to communal sacrifice to focus on personal interest and personal spending.
Apologies for the slight derail to last page's convo I missed this earlier and this is something I've been thinking about lately on the side. The issue is a paradox of scale. On one hand, we enjoy liberties and freedoms unparalleled from any point in time before us. We're more independent (career holding?) and more educated, and that (and tech advances) has improved quality of life standards leaps and bounds. OTOH, because quality of life has risen, our population has exploded at a seemingly exponential rate. So I might be a unique and free thinking individual. Yet if I live in a city of 4+ million people, there could very well be 4,000 with my exact traits of uniqueness, and quite possibly 10-100x more if you normalize some unimportant characteristics. In effect, the sheer size and scale of our population has diluted my individuality and meaning. I don't consider myself a statistic, but the groups hoarding the numbers do. And my ability to exact change has a higher starting cost or inertia. And it's that inertia, or the thought of it, that sweeps all of us impotent netizens along with the tide. So I may be smarter and more independent, but there's either more people around to disagree or oppose it...let alone the groups and interests that leverage their numbers of scale to get what they want.
