3 ms·
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 piec
by 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 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?