You are here

The Culture of Frivolity

For thousands of years people in and out of religious groups have understood idea that it is not right to kill somebody for no reason. Even those who have no value for a human life think that valuelessness is of some value. There is always a desire to prevent death. If a bandit could just walk up and take whatever material wealth they wanted with no conflict, they would. Much like a skydiver who desires the rush of jumping out of a plane for the adrenaline rush, but does not also wish for the chute not to open. For an individual to kill for his own purpose, even in self defense is something that must be understood by the community. There has to remain some sort of community of necessity, even for bandits, and even if that struggle is a simple one of power, there is an understanding in a limited sense of order to preserve communion in the necessary, then contingently, if these agreements continue over time, they become part of the participants identity. Problems occur when individuals develop identities that subvert the necessity of the community, because the community becomes subordinated to what a person feels is necessary for themselves, both in lead roles and subordinate participants. A leader can destroy whole civilizations through selfishness, while, an individual may just destroy everyone around him for what he sees as necessity. Some people believe that even the frivolous is necessary. They make no distinction, so they may kill you over a phone, or deprive you of your last bit of food even though the person has a surplus. So, here is a few ideas I will throw at you: We have to cleanse the necessary of greed; we have to understand that identity is not necessary, only desired; and we have to understand how to siphon through the mess that masquerades itself as our acceptable social order, and expose those who fight daily to forward the destruction of men through their own ignorance, and subversion of the necessary for the other, with their own identity as the ultimate masturbatory end.

It seems to me that some products are immoral to put a price on. Food, water and healthcare are necessities. One person is quite willing to subvert another person's food buying power, in order to buy a better car. There seems to be some idea that, "This is my money, nobody can take it from me!" Clearly these people do not understand that we live in a closed system with limited resources at this time. Every dollar that is "Mine!" is a dollar that somebody else cannot use. Therefore, the dollar is not yours entirely. Only part of it is. You also push the failure of somebody else further into the abyss, even providing necessities for yourself. When you understand this, how much more accountable are you for buying things that you do not need, while two billion people do not even have a proper place to shit, or drink?! Now, I am against a culture of entitlement. I do think society as a whole should take care of those who are victims of chance, or natural disease, but if you get sick by a failure of will, I think there is arguments to be made whether society should carry your burden. In these arguments I lien toward giving the people the benefit of the doubt, since lack of education and chemical imbalances could be to blame and it is better not to fight over bread crumbs. However, the people themselves, even though the state carries some responsibility to educate them, should not go out and have a bunch of kids when they have no money to support them! This gives incentive to those who will subvert the necessity of others, to obtain the frivolous for themselves. They believe, justifiably so, that there is just a bunch of lazy people who want sit around on welfare, and unfortunately there is! It is stupid for these people who fight against the culture of entitlement to focus only on those people to make their arguments. They simply want to support their greed. They cannot see that chance played a role in their successes, and they cannot see also that people get sick and suffer by deterministic processes that are beyond their control. Identity first people beat their chest, and happily will the other to death for the benefit of their own masturbatory identities, and to fulfill their frivolous desires while perpetuating an indirect subversion of the other's necessities, or even the others desire for their own identity.

We have to understand, that if living is the goal, then necessity is more important than identity! When you understand this, then your identity becomes necessary, naturally resolving the existential crisis so many people seem to be suffering from! Yes, you have to sacrifice your hysterical masturbation in order to understand the natural duty of necessity! It is quite possible for somebody else to tell you to do it, and, in using your passions to augment it, you may provide necessities for the other pragmatically.The major problem is that other parts of your life will clash and not follow the natural prime directive! You wont actually understand what the motivation is, other than it "feels good", or "seems like the right thing to do". You wont know why it is right, and therefore, the rest of your life will not fall in line to the prime natural objective, to have communion in the necessary, and identity in the frivolous. It is easy to say, "Well, I would not want to live with no identity!" Nobody is asking you to! But this statement is just another way of saying, "I'm going to do what I want, because it feels good for me!" Now, your whole life represents a subversion of the other's necessity, in the harshest moral evaluation, because now the other is nothing but a slab of beef in the ever churning meat grinder of your indirect contingency. You have now failed to be a conscious human being, and have affirmed yourself as a simple animal, or barbarian. We are all born animals, and many many people get old by appearance, but are nothing more than very old children like animals. I think it is fair to say, except for a special few, children are born selfish out of animalistic survival, it is the enlightenment of the drive for a true empathy in which a person can find their own individualistic necessary identity in which even what they do indirectly will be utilitarian with just ends, and a cleansed means to those ends. It seems that is just too inconvenient for people to concern themselves about how they become successful. As long as it is the quickest way possible, then it is the right way. I am going to call this the Excuse Directive.

So, I actually warmed up my conclusion in my theses list, but that is fine. I remember when I first started studying, all I wanted to do was become a good person. I wanted to cleanse myself, and be happy and beaming. The more I studied and opened my eyes, I started to see how ridiculously selfish this was. In the end you have to ask yourself, "Is leading by example enough to bring about what is right, and good, and true?" Now, when you ask yourself this question, you already have to understand what is really right and good and true, not just what feels right to you. What I am about to say is not some kind of license to go out and kill people for what is "right" to you. I am not a relativist, and I do know that there is right way, and that way is to be found in a search for genuine empathy. When I understood this, then I asked myself the question, "Is leading by example enough to bring about what is right, and good and true?" For me the answer is no. I decided that there actually are plenty of good and true empathetic, and compassionate people out there, and in them I see the beauty of what humanity could be.These great souls will even help religious people who are walking insults to them, in thinking in their own minds that they are rightfully condemned for not being part of their little identity group. These great souls will provide necessities with no agenda. No hope that the person will change to follow their tradition, in any other way than the "tradition" of universality. It is even insulting to call it tradition, because that is to taint it with the failure of men to who group together in selfishness. How can selfishness be universal? One can attempt to universalize it, but only succeeds in generalizing it to some acceptable definition, which says nothing. Only necessity is universal, and substantive. Opportunism is meaningless, and a hole of nothing inside a person. One may have to take medication to keep themselves alive that you do not have to take, but the possibility is there for you. It still exists as your possibility. You can never have fewer necessities, but you can definitely need more. You have to ask yourself the question, "Will I really die without this?" That is the question that leads to the distinction of the difference between what is universal for all mankind, and what is convenient for me. I am not here to say you have no right to seek out frivolous items to enjoy your life, but what I am trying to say do not become part of The Culture of Frivolity which has no conscious of the consequences for others that are being forced down one step, for every step they take upward.


Administrative Contacts

Site by Albany Media