4 ms·
> 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 itsel
by 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 agoI 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 agoI 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 agoIt doesn't help me to know that i do unique contribution by just existing. The existence in itself needs a reason.
- hosh 3y agoI 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 agoJust because something is unique doesn't mean it has value. Nonetheless its hard to follow your thought, perhaps you could elabore it more?