Carl writes:
> "You're forgetting our new national motto: Arbeit Macht Frei."
What does the motto mean and where did it come from? (translations into English help us monoliguists)
> John writes:
> Needs and wants are treated differently. Needs are filled first.
The remainder is used to fill wants and is distributed equally. I've
written this before but I can retype it again.
I think John makes an important point here. I would like to add (in proper LBO fashion) that wants are culturally constructed and that the wants of any society/culture depend on that society/ culture's conception of self.
As the piece I linked to in my recent post showed, a Marxist revolution will still leave humans in a state of unfreedom, since a Marxist revolution is only a partial one. So long as the revolution does not address the issue of how the self is conceived of, there will be no change in thinking about needs and wants.
> You are entitled to the same opportunity for piano acquisition as
everyone else. No one cares whether you can play or not. It will
lose its symbolic status however with everyone having equal
opportunity to acquire one.
In an enlightened culture/society after the revolution, items will not have any status attached to them, since people will no longer use material goods to construct/bolster a self.
Justin asks:
> Why shouldn't those who contribute more get more?
In an enlightened culture/society , the concept of "contribution" will be different. People will not construct their selves and hierarchies of status on the concept of compared contribution.
John again:
> I think having people excel at many endeavors does benefit
society as a whole I just don't think you have to bribe them to do
so.
Bribes are only necessary in societies/cultures which endorse backward notions of self. The bribe acts as a reinforcer of self, thereby propping up the illusion even as it gets the needed action accomplished. Enlightened individuals/societies will have no need of bribes since they will not fall into the trap of self.
Justin again:
> Second, the idea that we have no responsibility for our talent
and character seems to depend on a very strong metaphysical
view -- hard determinism -- which sort of undermines the point
of moral evaluation at all, including assessment of actions an
institutions as just or not.
Oh dear no. You are once again falling into the trap of self. A talent is a tool -- to be put to use for accomplishing the good for and avoiding harm to sentient beings. When we view a talent as the possession of a particular self, we are not only reinforcing the illusion of self, we are also in danger of putting that talent to work for an illusionary, harmful goal.
John asks Justin:
> If you are not advocating this I would like to know why you insist
so axiomatically that there must be an addition reward beyond what
I have already described in order to act as incentive to strive for
excellence or even do more than just a half-assed job?
Because those additional rewards help prop up illusions of self. Abandon false notions of self -- lose need for rewards.
John writes:
> The idea of punishment and rewards being necessary to motivate
workers is a Calvinistic tenet.
It is much deeper than that. It is at base of all Abrahamic/Western notions of self and society. Possibly one of the most pernicious ideas ever thought up and disseminated.
Justin writes:
> And yes, I think it's socially necessary for the lazy to be denied
the freedom to goof off at my expense.
My expense? All depends on how you conceive of self.
> This both to get more goods >for all to have and to avoid resentment
that would destabilize society.
What destabilizes society is the illusionary sense of self we have.
Luke writes:
> To my mind, making literature available and understandable to millions
of people is more important than saving the lives of a handful.
But would you think this way if you lived in an enlightened society? I have often wondered if one of the impediments of the revolution is that we are too busy making sure that the things we value in this world are still valued and available in the next.
For instance, I went to an exhibition of Buddhist art that I was excited about seeing. As I neared the end of it was confused by my growing boredom. I was growing weary of the art. Upon reflection I understood that a culture of no self produces art radically different from a culture obsessed with self.
I can also say that as I understand and practice Buddhism more and more , my own approach to/taste in art/food/sex has changed. Art/food/sex are still valued, but in a different, more useful way.
Charles writes:
> The change we need is not so much in our nature as in nurture. The
way to remove selfishness is not through wishing but through social
revolution.
And that social revolution is the revolution of no self.
> This is demonstrated by science and real evidence; it refutes the Western
philosophers' pipe dreams of a predominatly selfish human nature.
It is so inspiring to see Charles say Yes to Buddha. Miracles still happen. I'm all verklempt.
Brian Dauth Queer Buddhist Resister