I may be wrong but I am reading both sides here as starting out what bedlamhouse referred to as 'tongue slightly in cheek'. I had to read this part of the thread a couple of times in order hopefully have an idea of what the heck I am talking about.
I don't think either of you want or are in favor of a hedonistic society that supports idleness. I perceive the points that are trying to be made here are:
smallship1: that we should all think less in terms of begrudging and more in terms of giving of our time and talents and wouldn't it be nice if the whole world thought that way -
bedlamhouse: even in such a society there will be those who will contribute more and those who contribute less and that measure will never go away as long as society exists.
First, I think there may be a misunderstanding in the concept of talent. Such a phrase immediately brings up the image of actors and artists posturing to the crowd to announce and advertise the latest contributions to their craft. In any other area, we tend to use the term competent instead of talented to describe those who show a high aptitude in the task that they are asked to perform, (whether it's design a building, balance the books, or scrub the bathroom) because they have a genuine affinity for that particular task and take a certain pleasure out of it, not just harbor a can-do attitude. bedlamhouse, if your talent is digging ditches, weeding gardens, or washing dishes, then no one has the right to look down on you for that. I have the feeling, however, that what you intended was a one-liner and that your talents lie elsewhere. And yes, I thought it was funny - but I am also stupid and thick and think sarcasm is a hoot.
That said, I don't believe that is what smallship1 is intending to convey. A truly ideal society involves everyone doing what they love, and in doing so contributes in their own way to society as a whole. I think wires got crossed here when the implication was "doing what you love" got misinterpreted as strumming a guitar or reciting poetry and did not encompass the concept of guitar strumming as exercising a visual and tonal acuity, or reciting of poetry as a means of creating structure and pattern out of chaos, that can be applied to other things that are more mundane but still contributory, Each would have a feeling of accomplishment each day even when these talents are applied in a different venue. The poet would make a lousy ditch-digger or bank teller but might make one first-rate detective. The guitarist I don't think would be either happy or fulfilled in an office or political arena (same thing most of the time) but may make an excellent mediator - and if it's one thing this world needs, it's someone to hear them. :) I don't think bedlamhouse read that and I don't think smallship1 wrote that, so any tomatoes for that concept can be thrown in my direction. I just think the point you are both trying to achieve in your own way from opposite ends is to establish that survival of the society does not need to depend on doing what you have to but doing what makes you happy and if it contributes to that society, all the better.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
branchandroot
no subject
Date: 2005-08-24 07:27 am (UTC)I may be wrong but I am reading both sides here as starting out what bedlamhouse referred to as 'tongue slightly in cheek'. I had to read this part of the thread a couple of times in order hopefully have an idea of what the heck I am talking about.
I don't think either of you want or are in favor of a hedonistic society that supports idleness. I perceive the points that are trying to be made here are:
smallship1: that we should all think less in terms of begrudging and more in terms of giving of our time and talents and wouldn't it be nice if the whole world thought that way -
bedlamhouse: even in such a society there will be those who will contribute more and those who contribute less and that measure will never go away as long as society exists.
First, I think there may be a misunderstanding in the concept of talent. Such a phrase immediately brings up the image of actors and artists posturing to the crowd to announce and advertise the latest contributions to their craft. In any other area, we tend to use the term competent instead of talented to describe those who show a high aptitude in the task that they are asked to perform, (whether it's design a building, balance the books, or scrub the bathroom) because they have a genuine affinity for that particular task and take a certain pleasure out of it, not just harbor a can-do attitude. bedlamhouse, if your talent is digging ditches, weeding gardens, or washing dishes, then no one has the right to look down on you for that. I have the feeling, however, that what you intended was a one-liner and that your talents lie elsewhere. And yes, I thought it was funny - but I am also stupid and thick and think sarcasm is a hoot.
That said, I don't believe that is what smallship1 is intending to convey. A truly ideal society involves everyone doing what they love, and in doing so contributes in their own way to society as a whole. I think wires got crossed here when the implication was "doing what you love" got misinterpreted as strumming a guitar or reciting poetry and did not encompass the concept of guitar strumming as exercising a visual and tonal acuity, or reciting of poetry as a means of creating structure and pattern out of chaos, that can be applied to other things that are more mundane but still contributory, Each would have a feeling of accomplishment each day even when these talents are applied in a different venue. The poet would make a lousy ditch-digger or bank teller but might make one first-rate detective. The guitarist I don't think would be either happy or fulfilled in an office or political arena (same thing most of the time) but may make an excellent mediator - and if it's one thing this world needs, it's someone to hear them. :)
I don't think bedlamhouse read that and I don't think smallship1 wrote that, so any tomatoes for that concept can be thrown in my direction. I just think the point you are both trying to achieve in your own way from opposite ends is to establish that survival of the society does not need to depend on doing what you have to but doing what makes you happy and if it contributes to that society, all the better.
Of course, I could be wrong. I usually am.