5 ms·

Thats a very hard simplification in a complex modern world. A world like now never existed before: Millions of people living in cities were they are not able a

Thats a very hard simplification in a complex modern world. A world like now never existed before: Millions of people living in cities were they are not able at all to live in nature or can't afford to move away or into the cities. A world with high speed communication. A world with unlimited possibilities. A world were you grew up without ever having to learn were your water comes from and how your food is made. The world doesn't need most of us, this was never the case in the past. I'm a smart person, i'm not needed because there are still enough even smarter people. And regarding your quote of the Christians: They don't live it either or never lived. The dark ages produced a lot of christian focused 'art' full of gold. And in the past, if you had any mental illness, you just might have been killed or put in shackles.

hosh 3y ago
> Thats a very hard simplification in a complex modern world. Although I think the issues are complex, I disagree that the complexity of the modern world itself leads to this. One of the core features of modernization has to do with the substitution of local communities with regional and global institutions. That alone changed many things. It also does not help that our civilization keeps making this mistake: https://www.ribbonfarm.com/2010/07/26/a-big-little-idea-called-legibility/ https://www.ribbonfarm.com/2010/07/26/a-big-little-idea-call... ... that is, the effort by modern institutions to make sense of the world in a legible way leads to imposing simplification on the world. The world was already complex, even in pre-modern times. > The world doesn't need most of us, this was never the case in the past. I'm a smart person, i'm not needed because there are still enough even smarter people. If we take a person's worth as a _quantity_, sure. We can reduce every person into a set of stats, similar to D&D character sheets, and every person fits into roles based upon those stats. Those stats make things more legible. Each person, however, has a _quality_, and it is here one's unique purpose and contribution can be discovered. I didn't learn this from ikigai specifically; as one of the comments talked about, some form of this was widely known in pre-modernized cultures. Carol Sanford has been writing, talking, and practicing this as applied to the modern world for decades. There's also the work of Christopher Alexander. His writings and work convinced me that modernity did not have to be designed this way.
- UncleOxidant 3y ago
  I don't think that Oioioioiio was saying that each person doesn't have intrinsic worth (quality, as you put it), more like that each of us has such a small piece of the puzzle now. In the past if you lost a community member who had critical knowledge and skills it would endanger the survival of the community. Now there aren't a lot of communities where that would be the case.
  - hosh 3y ago
    I wasn't talking about intrinsic worth at all. That kind of framing is still looking at things in terms of quantity rather than quality. I'm talking about the difference in the very worldview and paradigm. I am certainly not just talking about the material production someone can contribute. The unique contribution someone can make isn't necessarily about the survival of the community. When I say unique, it means once that person has passed, there will never be again that particular contribution -- at the very minimum, the environment, relationship, and moment is unique, as is the person. As such, the community also grows and changes over time, a living system as much as the individual people within the community are themselves living systems.
    - Oioioioiio 3y ago
      It doesn't help me to know that i do unique contribution by just existing. The existence in itself needs a reason.
      - hosh 3y ago
        I wasn't talking about a contribution from just existing. I'm talking about bringing the inner purpose seeded deep in oneself and lining it up with the outer world.
        Oioioioiio 3y ago
        Just because something is unique doesn't mean it has value. Nonetheless its hard to follow your thought, perhaps you could elabore it more?
UncleOxidant 3y ago
> And regarding your quote of the Christians: They don't live it either or never lived. The dark ages produced a lot of christian focused 'art' full of gold. There have always been Christians who at least tried to live it. They're in the minority and they weren't and aren't the ones you hear much about (or from) but that's kind of the point.
graemep 3y ago
So why were people considering these questions so long ago? It s not the modern world that is the only problem. > And regarding your quote of the Christians: They don't live it either or never lived. Lots of people have. Not everyone was perfect, but it was an aspiration, and there are whole traditions of monasticism and other service based on it. It is no accident that the word organisations that help others is derived from a Christian theological term, charity. > The dark ages produced a lot of christian focused 'art' full of gold. The dark ages were not dark. Art is one of the things that contribute to the community, and its creation leads the artist to fulfilment. Public art (which is what religious art usually is) is the opposite of hoarding private art. > A world with unlimited possibilities. Very few people have access "unlimited possibilities". Financial constraints, legal constraints, personal constraints..
- a_bonobo 3y ago
  >Very few people have access "Man is born free and everywhere is in chains" - as Rousseau said 300 years ago.
- Oioioioiio 3y ago
  'Charity' or helping others exists in all other cultures too. Thats not inherentliy christian. Nonetheless, ikigai is more than just what christians wanted. Ikigai means different things for different people and the zeitgeist and your cirumstances are having a big part in it. Dark ages were dark in sense of we have not that many records of it, there were little change. 'Art' was stuck and pressured from church and others. Art became art after all the revolutionary ideas and probably achieved the proper unlimitness of art today.
woliveirajr 3y ago
> The world doesn't need most of us Perfect. It isn't even a matter of being replaceable: it's just that so many people might die, anywhere in the world, and you don't even notice it.
- nathan_compton 3y ago
  The world has never needed us, in my opinion. Other human beings may find you useful, love you, whatever, and you may find some kind justification for your own existence, but the world itself has never cared about people.

hosh 3y ago

> Thats a very hard simplification in a complex modern world. Although I think the issues are complex, I disagree that the complexity of the modern world itself leads to this. One of the core features of modernization has to do with the substitution of local communities with regional and global institutions. That alone changed many things. It also does not help that our civilization keeps making this mistake: https://www.ribbonfarm.com/2010/07/26/a-big-little-idea-called-legibility/ https://www.ribbonfarm.com/2010/07/26/a-big-little-idea-call... ... that is, the effort by modern institutions to make sense of the world in a legible way leads to imposing simplification on the world. The world was already complex, even in pre-modern times. > The world doesn't need most of us, this was never the case in the past. I'm a smart person, i'm not needed because there are still enough even smarter people. If we take a person's worth as a _quantity_, sure. We can reduce every person into a set of stats, similar to D&D character sheets, and every person fits into roles based upon those stats. Those stats make things more legible. Each person, however, has a _quality_, and it is here one's unique purpose and contribution can be discovered. I didn't learn this from ikigai specifically; as one of the comments talked about, some form of this was widely known in pre-modernized cultures. Carol Sanford has been writing, talking, and practicing this as applied to the modern world for decades. There's also the work of Christopher Alexander. His writings and work convinced me that modernity did not have to be designed this way.

UncleOxidant 3y ago
I don't think that Oioioioiio was saying that each person doesn't have intrinsic worth (quality, as you put it), more like that each of us has such a small piece of the puzzle now. In the past if you lost a community member who had critical knowledge and skills it would endanger the survival of the community. Now there aren't a lot of communities where that would be the case.
- hosh 3y ago
  I wasn't talking about intrinsic worth at all. That kind of framing is still looking at things in terms of quantity rather than quality. I'm talking about the difference in the very worldview and paradigm. I am certainly not just talking about the material production someone can contribute. The unique contribution someone can make isn't necessarily about the survival of the community. When I say unique, it means once that person has passed, there will never be again that particular contribution -- at the very minimum, the environment, relationship, and moment is unique, as is the person. As such, the community also grows and changes over time, a living system as much as the individual people within the community are themselves living systems.
  - Oioioioiio 3y ago
    It doesn't help me to know that i do unique contribution by just existing. The existence in itself needs a reason.
    - hosh 3y ago
      I wasn't talking about a contribution from just existing. I'm talking about bringing the inner purpose seeded deep in oneself and lining it up with the outer world.
      - Oioioioiio 3y ago
        Just because something is unique doesn't mean it has value. Nonetheless its hard to follow your thought, perhaps you could elabore it more?

UncleOxidant 3y ago

> And regarding your quote of the Christians: They don't live it either or never lived. The dark ages produced a lot of christian focused 'art' full of gold. There have always been Christians who at least tried to live it. They're in the minority and they weren't and aren't the ones you hear much about (or from) but that's kind of the point.

graemep 3y ago

So why were people considering these questions so long ago? It s not the modern world that is the only problem. > And regarding your quote of the Christians: They don't live it either or never lived. Lots of people have. Not everyone was perfect, but it was an aspiration, and there are whole traditions of monasticism and other service based on it. It is no accident that the word organisations that help others is derived from a Christian theological term, charity. > The dark ages produced a lot of christian focused 'art' full of gold. The dark ages were not dark. Art is one of the things that contribute to the community, and its creation leads the artist to fulfilment. Public art (which is what religious art usually is) is the opposite of hoarding private art. > A world with unlimited possibilities. Very few people have access "unlimited possibilities". Financial constraints, legal constraints, personal constraints..

a_bonobo 3y ago
>Very few people have access "Man is born free and everywhere is in chains" - as Rousseau said 300 years ago.
Oioioioiio 3y ago
'Charity' or helping others exists in all other cultures too. Thats not inherentliy christian. Nonetheless, ikigai is more than just what christians wanted. Ikigai means different things for different people and the zeitgeist and your cirumstances are having a big part in it. Dark ages were dark in sense of we have not that many records of it, there were little change. 'Art' was stuck and pressured from church and others. Art became art after all the revolutionary ideas and probably achieved the proper unlimitness of art today.

woliveirajr 3y ago

> The world doesn't need most of us Perfect. It isn't even a matter of being replaceable: it's just that so many people might die, anywhere in the world, and you don't even notice it.

nathan_compton 3y ago
The world has never needed us, in my opinion. Other human beings may find you useful, love you, whatever, and you may find some kind justification for your own existence, but the world itself has never cared about people.