Greetings,
I received one response off list which I will share with you. The author
wishes to remain anonymous, having insufficient time to engage in ongoing
discussions.
Steve Kurtz
---------------------------------------------------------
Dear Steve,
Thanks for your posting Re: rights/responsibilities.
> > ( by the way, I see this as the
> > implied question, Does or should everyone have to work?)
Yes, I agree with your definition; "work as required human actions".
my answer is also YES.
You said:
> A passive, vegetative human cannot survive for many days independently;
> so someone's work is required for existence. Eating and breathing are
> not work in isolation, but normally work is required for
> sustenance/survival.
It is true. The vegetative people are not responsible and thus no vision
for the future except an empty theory which cannot be proved because
they are not practical.
You said:
> I indicated that work necessitated those qualities, but not the reverse.
Right again. Work necessitated at least a strong will power to hold
oneself together to be diciplined and being serious (not in talking but
in doing).
> > Thomas said:
> >
> > The key word here seems to be "responsibilities" and the implied question
> > is, "How, without renumeration could we expect members of society to work?"
You said:
> The "remuneration" is what I called "rewards" - "community acceptance
> and solidarity"
I think, gaining friend(s) is one of the rewards. Work, attitude and
non-arogance manner yield friends; which results in yielding 'community
acceptance and solidarity'. Without responsible attitude, friends break
ties and community doesn't vote for those.
You said:
> Since the act of work has its own intentionality, that is reason enough!
> Value lies in the eye of the beholder. If the community doesn't value your
> acts, you have acted independently of communitarian responsibilities.
Agree.
> > Thomas said:
> >
> > However, what should the community expect from everyone as cooperative
> > members? How about expecting them to feel secure and trusting.
I shall answer this in away that "why should not the community expect
everyone as cooperative members". Otherwise the term "the community" do
not have to exist! How could one be trusted if he/she does prove
non-cooperative in the community?
You said:
> That is a great idea. The community can decide, if excess resources (not
> only currency/credits) permit human actions (work)to provide the time,
> place and teachers. But the community decides, not you or I.
> Best case scenarios are always attractive.
Yes, the community decides! thus we should be cooperative.
> > "Why can't everyone be perfect" is the implied question here.
>
> No. Why can't behavior be encouraged that moves *closer* to a best case
> scenario?
Good. The behavioral change from less responsible to more responsible is
badly needed. Responsibilities to the future benefit everyone. The
Future of Work should include working towards the Future Common Good.
This comment is good too.
> In a way, your "here to experience" reminds me of the Beatles' song
> "All You Need Is Love".
This "here to experience" against the Buddhist philosophy of "here to
correct ourselves earnestly and to improve ourselves all time at every
second!".
Sincerely,
