|
0 members (),
388
guests, and
4
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,164
Megastar
|
Megastar
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,164 |
MEANINGFUL WORK, OR EMPLOYMENT Samwik, in response to your comment about Dr. Szasz's comment about the value of work as a "panacea", I repeat what he said with words that I would add: "The greatest analgesic, soporific, stimulant, tranquilizer, narcotic and, to some extent, even antibiotic--in short, the closest thing to a panacea--known to medical science is work" (Szasz)-- (Here is what I, LGK, add) that is, work that is not just work, but meaningful employment, work that the workers doing it find personally enjoyable.
At the end of the day, such workers are left with the feeling that, they have earned more than a living; they have contibuted to the social good of the total community.
How many people really love what they do for a living? How many go to work simply to earn enough money to pay their bills? I feel sorry for those of us who are just wage slaves. Looking back, I spent over 40 years doing work that I enjoyed and found meaningful. My work gave me just enough money to survive, and little or no power. About the nature of meaning, check out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viktor_FranklDr. Frankl, in his book, MAN'S SEARCH FOR MEANING, points out that many people are more driven by the need to find meaning and purpose for their lives than they are in having pleasure, to procreate (as Freud said), or to have money and power (as Adler said). BTW, years ago I corresponded with Dr. Szasz and told him about what I was doing with pneumatology--spiritually-based psychology--and the goals I had in mind in helping people help themselves enabling all of us to work together in making the world a better place. He responded, expressed great approval and encouraged me to continue. Hiya Revl. I wasn't commenting on Dr. Szasz; I was quoting your added emphasis (of 'meaningful'). That is what I thought was important. I find this real interesting too. "Dr. Frankl, in his book, MAN'S SEARCH FOR MEANING, points out that many people are more driven by the need to find meaning and purpose for their lives than they are in having pleasure, to procreate (as Freud said), or to have money and power (as Adler said)." I wonder if there is a genetic trait or tendancy towards these differing "needs." Also, interesting to think of these needs in terms of the [sacred values] folks in that PNAS reference over on [Is Science the Answer?] (#21476). ...and I still need to check out those economics links you provided above. Later.... ~~samwik
Pyrolysis creates reduced carbon! ...Time for the next step in our evolutionary symbiosis with fire.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311
Megastar
|
|
Megastar
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311 |
Samwik wonders: "I wonder if there is a genetic trait, or tendancy, towards these differing "needs.""
We can also call them 'drives'. INMO, there are psychological (mental) and pneumatological (spiritual) as well as somatological (physical) genetic traits.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,031
Megastar
|
|
Megastar
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,031 |
Samwik and Revlgking wonder I wonder if there is a genetic trait or tendancy towards these differing "needs."
I believe genes are responsible for much more of our selves than just our appearance. Certainly instincts must be genetically inherited in some way. One of my brothers is even convinced the preference of an individual dairy cow to come in to the open side of a herring-bone milking sshed is inherited.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,490
Megastar
|
|
Megastar
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,490 |
terry - Was there not some research that found an area of the brain that appeared to be more active in those people who believed in the supernatural -including God, the divine etc? Maybe it was more a predisposition to believe, a desire for belief? This research was interpreted as the genetic existence of the need to believe in some of us, whilst others just don't get it in any way.
Loved the cow story!! I too believe that we are only now just at the very beginning of finding out how much of our behaviour is genetically predetermined. As a teacher during the 60s and 70s it was heracy to even think, let alone believe that tendencies were inherited. Of course I do think that we then have to make a choice in our behaviour if our genetic traits are wildly anti-social, -but I think many of us have an illogical preference for the 'open side' and do not really know why!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
Megastar
|
|
Megastar
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840 |
it was heracy to even think, let alone believe that tendencies were inherited Probably because, as you say, it implies less personal accountability for our behaviour; and the image of a little DNA character sitting inside with some a kind of remote control device infringes upon our sense of liberty.
"Time is what prevents everything from happening at once" - John Wheeler
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,031
Megastar
|
|
Megastar
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,031 |
Ellis wrote:
"Of course I do think that we then have to make a choice in our behaviour if our genetic traits are wildly anti-social".
I'm prepared to accept we are genetically programmed to co-operate, especially with those we know. We're programmed to be part of a tribe. Most antisocial traits are displayed in those who have been inadequately socialised as children, possibly at a specific time in their development.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311
Megastar
|
|
Megastar
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311 |
Last edited by Revlgking; 05/15/07 04:37 AM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,490
Megastar
|
|
Megastar
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,490 |
Terry- that is an excellent point about socialisation, but sometimes individuals have to make a choice. Sometimes this individual choice has to go against the majority, as their actions can be dangerous or just plain wrong. It's a hard thing to do, and most of us go woth the herd, or pack, and follow our leaders.
Terry wrote;
Most antisocial traits are displayed in those who have been inadequately socialised as children, possibly at a specific time in their development.
Whilst this statement is widely believed and social behaviour is usually predicated on this belief I feel that sometimes people can be born without the need for that sort of interaction, and find no difficulty in being anti-social even though the opportunity to act differently is also present, and will not disadvantage them. Even if such people are also highly intelligent and charming they can still be very destructive personally and socially.
Of course the difficulty lies in describing what inadequate socialisation is. We all know of people who seem to have had charmed lives who are greedy despots and people who had to endure childhoods of appalling cruelty and deprivation who achieve amazing personal and social success. That is why I find it hard to ignore a genetic component to behaviour and outcome.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,164
Megastar
|
|
Megastar
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,164 |
Ellis wrote:
"Of course I do think that we then have to make a choice in our behaviour if our genetic traits are wildly anti-social".
I'm prepared to accept we are genetically programmed to co-operate, especially with those we know. We're programmed to be part of a tribe. Most antisocial traits are displayed in those who have been inadequately socialised as children, possibly at a specific time in their development. Terry, when you think about it, that makes sense. Imagine how poorly we'd survive (when our social support systems weren't around at those critical times) if our behaviour didn't revert to a more animalistic, selfish, survival mode. [or words to that effect] I'm imagining a developing child, orphaned and trying to survive with those "socializing behaviours" as the ONLY option! It's probably a good thing that we have multi-modal developmental pathways for behaviour (overall in evolutionary history -and future), though it's kinda inconvenient these days. ~~SA
Pyrolysis creates reduced carbon! ...Time for the next step in our evolutionary symbiosis with fire.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311
Megastar
|
|
Megastar
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311 |
I am glad to see how open-minded this dialogue is. We need to keep in mind that words like "evangelism" and "gospel"--literally meaning 'good news'--and they are not dirty words. Of course there are evangelists and preachers of gospel "truth" who practice bigotry--"My truth is the only truth" they say. But this does not mean that all are bigots. We need to keep in mind the words of Einstein:" The bigotry of the nonbeliever is for me nearly as funny as the bigotry of the believer.
— Albert Einstein
in Goldman, p. vii
Last edited by Revlgking; 05/15/07 03:58 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,490
Megastar
|
|
Megastar
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,490 |
Sam- I think that usually survival demands conformity. The further down the pecking order a person is the more necessary it is for them to aquire camouflage! The cult of the individual is an indulgence of the privileged. Most human changes (whether good or evil) have been instigated by people who do not live by the rules of their society, and mostly we do not like them at all! We cannot even agree what to call them-- after all, one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311
Megastar
|
|
Megastar
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311 |
IMHO, no one who takes away, outside the rule of law, the freedom of another to live is a "freedom" fighter.
G~O~D--Now & ForeverIS:Nature, Nurture & PNEUMA-ture, Thanks to Warren Farr&ME AT www.unitheist.org
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,031
Megastar
|
|
Megastar
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,031 |
Revlgking wrote:
"no one who takes away, outside the rule of law, the freedom of another to live is a "freedom" fighter."
What if the laws have been devised to advantage just a small proportion of the society? No Rev. I agree with Ellis. One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. Sometimes the situation is so bleak that extreme action is called for. There was an article in a recent BBC "History" magazine comparing suffragettes with terrorists. Did you know they used bombs?
Last edited by terrytnewzealand; 05/16/07 07:21 AM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,164
Megastar
|
|
Megastar
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,164 |
"We cannot even agree what to call them-- after all, one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter." -Ellis I gotta agree. I was suprised to find out that only about a third of the American colonist wanted to break away from England. The 'Founding Fathers' and other revolutionaries would be know as terrorists today if France (and luck) hadn't helped us win. ...stretching to get BOT: Let's see; is speaking out for a cause (freedom/justice fighter) similar to evangelising?  ~SA
Pyrolysis creates reduced carbon! ...Time for the next step in our evolutionary symbiosis with fire.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,031
Megastar
|
|
Megastar
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,031 |
What? Did someone mention the Middle East?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,490
Megastar
|
|
Megastar
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,490 |
There are plenty of examples--- for example the IRA being supported by donations from the US- blowing up the CBD in Manchester, the resistance in France blowing up "The Germans", Nelson Mandela imprisoned as a terrorist, and today--we have to find a new way to describe the people in Iraq throwing bombs at the coalition forces because of the difficult question--Is it possible to be a terrorist in your own country? -so now they are insurgents!
To (mis)quote a cliche--History is written by the victors.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,031
Megastar
|
|
Megastar
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,031 |
Ah. My relations, the IRA. Seems anything is possible after what's happened there recently.
|
|
|
|
|
