It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Epiphany today

page: 2
10
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 14 2012 @ 07:03 PM
link   
reply to post by ownbestenemy
 


www.thefreedictionary.com...


1. Of or relating to a commune.

2. Of or relating to a community.

3.

a. Of, belonging to, or shared by the people of a community; public.
b. Marked by collective ownership and control of goods and property.


This is generally how communal is defined, and I believe is why you and I both bristled at Nor Easter's use of the word. Neither one of us are fans of collectivism in any of its shapes or forms, so we will react to words such as this with agitation. However, you and I are also profound defenders of freedom, and I feel I can suggest without fear of recourse or contradiction that the both of us have a belief that certain resources on this planet are indeed "communal". The air we breathe is communal, and in spite of the push for the privatization of water, and lamentably the profit off it, I feel comfortable in assuming you do not believe that water is a resource that can or should be used under the most unfortunate paradigm of scarcity. Water is "communal". The hunting of wildlife is "communal". The climbing of mountains is "communal". The hiking of desert or mountainous trails is "communal". These are the resources we all, or at least most of us, tend to share.

In terms of competition, I often hear, or read someone lamenting that we are too steeped in competition and not nearly steeped enough in cooperation. Every time I hear or read this I cannot help but guess that the one offering this lamentation has never spent much time playing any team sport, or even any sport at all, or even just games. Football begins with cooperation. Each team cooperates with each other to play by a set of agreed upon rules before they go about the game of competition. The same is true of basketball, baseball, soccer and hockey. These are games with teams.

Some one somewhere glibly coined the phrase "There is no I in team". No, there is no I in team, but there is an I in idiot. And if we want to play games of semantics I suppose we could argue there is an M and an E in team, so arguably there is a Me in team. Team sports have their most valuable players, and it is the collective effort of individuals, sometimes champions, that make up that team. This does not make team sports a product of collectivism, or any "communal" ideology, as individuals can use their sense of reason and logic to understand that we can remain individuals while agreeing to come together collectively to accomplish a shared goal.

Other sports, such as golf, tennis, track, skiing, and gymnastics can be team sports but can also be an individual sport, and while boxing is loosely called a "team" when in the Olympics, this is not really a team sport by any stretch of the imagination. Even so, as an individual sport, there still must be cooperation before there can be competition, and the very same holds true of capitalism. Cooperation is necessary in order to have competition.

I've paraphrased Galt in this thread all ready, now indulge me while I quote this iconic mythic hero directly:

"I swear by my life, and my love of it, that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine."

This is the clarion call for all indivualists every where. It is an oath that stands in stark contrast to this Marxist clarion call:

From each according to his ability, to each according to his need

Which call we, as individuals, answer depends largely on how we perceive happiness.


edit on 14-4-2012 by Jean Paul Zodeaux because: (no reason given)




posted on Apr, 14 2012 @ 11:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by NorEaster
Learned? From whom? From small communities (the family) is whom. You think like a 21st century person. Don't. Instinctive behavior is much more primitive. Humans have never been lone hunters. They've always traveled in packs.


This is interesting, but I cannot accept your understanding here. Communal behavior are learned yes, from communities and like minded individuals that wish to seek that type of living. But to paint all of humanity as communal, naturally, doesn't always fit and will never fit. The intense individualistic nature of humans, because of our natural diversity (even among siblings and twins) is enough to show that such is not automatically natural.

I am not sure how being an individualist and having a strong sense of intuition is a "21st century person" or even how it is "primitive". Could you expound on that?


I'm going to suggest that his being with his "kind" (community of similars) allowed him to feel relaxed enough to "own" what you had taught him and internalize it. Your example is actually a better defense of the communal nature of humanity than the competitive nature as a primordial influence.


There is a bit of agreement between our two views here -- in that among peers, we find like minded individuals to commune with -- to this I do not disagree but I have a feeling you disagree that there should be individuals within. I guess that topic is for a different thread and a different time though.


One strong chord will never be stronger than three average chords wound as a cable. The winding of the three multiplies the strength, not simply adding to the strength. A community is immeasurably stronger than any outlier can ever be. And in many different ways of being stronger.


In life I tend to see a lot of black and white and see gray areas are areas in which people are just too indecisive to make a choice; may it be fear or indecision, but absolutists are beyond black and white. The very notion that you say "never" and "immeasurably", when such is not always the case and I dare say is the exception, shows where you and I split in terms of how we view ourselves and our interactions here on Earth. But it is good. It is good to discuss the split and see your side and I hope you enjoy hearing my side.



You can speak for yourself but not for humanity in general. You've been properly programmed to embrace the "rugged individual" archetype, so of course, you'll feel that it's the best way to be (given the choice between loner status and being part of a community), but the rest of humanity doesn't seem to agree with you, if cities and nations and other obvious examples of community are any indication.


This goes for you as well -- and how do you know you haven't been programmed to embrace the "Utopian collective" archetype? This is the absolutes that you operate in -- my view of the world must be skewed because it does not match up with yours; thus I am sorely misinformed and "programmed".


Marxism is what it is and to be honest, I've never bothered with finding out if it's actually anything like what it's been described as being, so I can really comment on that.


How can you say something is what it is but never sought to gain wisdom upon it? Either you said this just to say it or there are deeper underlying meanings to what you are saying. Either you know what it is because you have knowledge of it or you do not. I wasn't then, nor now, testing you on it but what you said isn't logical.


It exists in intimate contextual relationship with everything that affects it and engages it. My issue isn't with any one damaging impact on the human mind, but with all damaging impacts on the human mind.


Do you think an individual, or those who consider mankind to be individualistic, to be damaging factors upon the human mind?


I guess, that as a middle aged man, I've been more aware of what's hurting my fellow middle aged guy human beings.


I am right there with you on being middle aged (though I guess it depends on where we start and stop the 'middle' part!) and I view the damage in the opposite light as you. The difference is you have it in your mind that my view is from a "marketed" message that is pounded into my head all day long -- yet this could be so far from the truth as anything that I hear, see or learn goes through an intense process of checks and verification of validity before I even give it a second thought. The reason you cannot fathom this I suspect is you think we are not individuals and that we are all the same...though I could be making a large assumption here and if so, I will eat my own words on that.
edit on 14-4-2012 by ownbestenemy because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 15 2012 @ 10:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 




"I swear by my life, and my love of it, that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine."



From each according to his ability, to each according to his need


Yin, Yang

Middle Way

life on the tightrope...



posted on Apr, 15 2012 @ 10:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Spiramirabilis
 


I am not so sure that John Galt's creed is the Ying to Marx's creed's Yang. John Galt is not insisting that he will never help another person, and is not precluding charity. Although Ayn Rand insisted that altruism was a fantasy, I am not so sure Rand was against charity. What Galt is insisting is that he will never sacrifice his own principles, and certainly not his own existence, for the sake of another. Again, this does not preclude dying in the act of heroism, or even in the tragic act of hubris, as long as that death is caused by ones own principles, desires, and needs, then it is well within the context of Galt's creed.



posted on Apr, 15 2012 @ 11:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by Spiramirabilis
 


I am not so sure that John Galt's creed is the Ying to Marx's creed's Yang. John Galt is not insisting that he will never help another person, and is not precluding charity. Although Ayn Rand insisted that altruism was a fantasy, I am not so sure Rand was against charity. What Galt is insisting is that he will never sacrifice his own principles, and certainly not his own existence, for the sake of another. Again, this does not preclude dying in the act of heroism, or even in the tragic act of hubris, as long as that death is caused by ones own principles, desires, and needs, then it is well within the context of Galt's creed.


all that just kinda made my point for me

it takes a village to raise a child

everything is in the mix

got nowhere else to go with this - I'm just sayin'...

:-)

OK, I do have somewhere to go with this

I know a man that is - more or less - against charity. The circumstances people live with are the result of their own choices...it's all about personal responsibility...you get the drift. People should always stand on their own two feet - anything short of that is socialist

gasp

I once saw him go into a store (with my own eyes) and purchase food and diapers for a woman that was living in her car with her two kids...

We pick and choose our personal rules and philosophies as if it's important to choose. Stating them out loud is like a commercial for our personalities

But following the rules is another thing all together - we're all more alike than we are different

Most of us live our life in the middle - no matter what we declare



posted on Apr, 15 2012 @ 11:27 PM
link   



posted on Apr, 15 2012 @ 11:33 PM
link   
reply to post by lacrimosa
 


thank you

I needed that

:-)



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 1   >>

log in

join