"Do": What is "do"?

[Pizzabeak]

Why do people place such an emphasis on doing stuff? Why is everyone obsessed with, not necessarily "being productive", but with "creating" or doing available stuff?

Consider the lizard or spider, with their trademark trance. If you have a pet reptile or amphibian notice how these certain animals spend a lot of time frozen in motion. What are they doing? Before a lizard moves, what is it doing? Regulating body temperature, looking at stuff, thinking of what to do next..

The spider builds a web then waits for prey, sometimes making touch ups to the design. Otherwise it just stays still and waits; what is it doing? Sure, they don't have as great a need for entertainment as we do but still...

In capitalism (etc) there's an emphasis on producing, for slightly obvious reasons. However, does that suggest everyone should be in the role of "creator" in some shape or form? If everyone were "creating" no one would consume. The market would be flooded with product no one wants or asked for. When consuming or acquiring product is given a negative connotation everyone will want to be on the other end, but then they will just end up contributing to available products for consumption, keeping other men in that position which enticed them to want to produce in the first place.

Mystics or shamans, there are two paths to enlightenment, one being 'surrender' and to go with the flow, the other being 'intent' and having the will to be what one wants to be. There might be some occasional clash between these. Can one know if they are on the "right" path (not necessarily including enlightenment, just life path in general)? What, exactly, is "do"?

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

I have a hard time distinguishing between "do" and "be."

Spoiler

 

[Pizzabeak]

What do you mean by be? I mean, what does "do" do?

Caring requires some type of "do", or I guess be, to occur in some fashion. Hypocrisy can be imminent, if someone likes donating to homeless what happens if they don't for a period? Might not be that big of a deal until (a) certain time frame(s). All scales seem to exhibit some type of action.

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

Basically I'm hard and deep into the 'surrender' school. Maybe "stuck" is the word. I don't think there is a right path outside of one's own, and that even that is entirely neutral and only has meaning to oneself, if that. So the whole question seems pointless in that regard.

If hypocrisy is the nature of the universe, is it worth "doing" in such an environment?

 

[Brontosaurie]

a stupid excuse for a society where no-one gets to be themselves. "doing" is always unnecessary pain.

 

[redbaron]

There's no reason you can't both create and consume and the reality is that everyone who lives, is constantly consuming. The reasoning is that if all you're doing is consuming and not creating, you're offering nothing to anyone, while simultaneously burdening others - forcing them to create for no reason other than for you to consume.

Kind of like how people who're unemployed are told to, 'get a job' or people who just scrounge off of welfare are looked down upon. It's because people realize that resources are finite, and see it as a matter of people earning their fair share. If someone creates literally nothing for others, then why should they be allowed to take from others?

I both agree and disagree with this in certain contexts but on the whole I tend to see it as a simple expression of how the basic principles of ecology are bound to manifest in any society where resources are finite.

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

RB, People are locked into consumption but not creation? It seems like you're grouping two different types of consumption here: that necessary to exist (thus all are locked into it) and the other being consumption by lack of "do"/ability? Allegorically, plants consuming sunlight & nutrients differs greatly from predation despite their most basic commonality in energetics.

What if resources aren't as finite as the majority of a population believes? I think there's actually a trade-off between creation and flexibility going on amid a search for equilibrium.

Should there also be a distinction made among freeloaders, between unwilling vs unable? Why are some unwilling to "do"? How are they treated vs those who are unable? It seems the unwilling are persecuted more. Why? In evolutionary terms, it's ass-backwards. The masses always seem to harp on the choice itself instead of the reasoning behind it. Aren't hive minds also vulnerable to your favorite "effect"?

 

[redbaron]

THD, refer to this sentence.

I both agree and disagree with this in certain contexts

Should there also be a distinction made among freeloaders, between unwilling vs unable? Why are some unwilling to "do"? How are they treated vs those who are unable? It seems the unwilling are persecuted more. Why? In evolutionary terms, it's ass-backwards.

In evolutionary terms I'd say it's working exactly as intended. Someone who simply refuses to create is a burden.

Someone who's willing but unable to create in one way, could still conceivably create in another way.

Also if they're simply unable to create, can you really persecute them anyway? What are you going to do, tell the quadriplegic that he's being a freeloader?

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

"What are you going to do, tell the quadriplegic that he's being a freeloader?"

This is the conundrum. Wrong term, but "objectively" some can't produce to sustain themselves, yet we protect and love them for moral reasons, whereas hate towards the unwilling seems entirely subjective yet people don't investigate why they hold that stance, I'd guess because it somehow threatens the status quo.

Is this narcissism gone awry? I don't think so. I see the unwilling as the most important component of society from an evolutionary perspective; reservists able to step in under changing conditions; a source of plasticity... It's just that maybe there's an overabundance of both labor and freeloaders. *something something post-scarcity*

Someone who's willing but unable to create in one way, could still conceivably create in another way.

^This is the bridge to activating the reserve, imho.

Good thoughts. Thanks.

 

[redbaron]

This is the conundrum. Wrong term, but "objectively" some can't produce to sustain themselves, yet we protect and love them for moral reasons, whereas hate towards the unwilling seems entirely subjective yet people don't investigate why they hold that stance, I'd guess because it somehow threatens the status quo.

I don't know really. I've met people who actually dislike the idea of a disability pension, government-funded care for the aged, sick, disabled and the like. Personally I don't think people should live in squalor just because they're incapable of meeting the demands of day-to-day life in their current physical or mental state.

That does extend to people who are unwilling for concrete reasons too. Support for people who're depressed or come from bad environments is something I endorse.

There's a big difference though between privileged complacency and actual problems.

Is this narcissism gone awry? I don't think so. I see the unwilling as the most important component of society from an evolutionary perspective; reservists able to step in under changing conditions; a source of plasticity... It's just that maybe there's an overabundance of both labor and freeloaders.

Sure, but for them to step in they have to have a measure of willingness right? Unless we're talking different things. To me the important component isn't the unwilling, but the people who are willing to do what most others aren't - as well as those who are able to do what most aren't.

You might be unwilling to contribute to what you view as wage slaving or whatever else, but there should be an alternative. In that way we probably agree, that things which go against the status quo and offer innovative ways of doing things are key to evolution.

*something something post-scarcity*

LOL

 

[Ex-User (9086)]

I'd rather think of people not willing to do as being in the same category as the people unable to do something. Doing otherwise relies on assumptions about the origin of the disability.

There is no "Exactly", it requires perspective, context and goal to define "do" or anything else. Unless you use it as everything it could be, I'm all for that kind of thinking but it makes questioning it irrelevant.

 

[DrGregoryHouse]

Great original post OP, thanks! INTPs are a lot like spiders and lizards then.

I think a lot about the irony that so many people seem to run around busying themselves with solving problems they created in the first place because they were busy solving problems. Most of the time it would seem "business" is really "busy-ness" for no net meaningful result.

 

[RaBind]

Also if they're simply unable to create, can you really persecute them anyway? What are you going to do, tell the quadriplegic that he's being a freeloader?

Surely if that's what they are then that's what they should be called.

But more seriously though it's pretty obvious that what those who are unable to create and contribute in the typical way, contribute in other ways. I.E. in the quadriplegic example, said persons family and friends receive comfort, happiness and other benefits by virtue of the individual's continued existence and greater society in general receives comfort in knowing the fact that there is a safety net in place, to look after those of us who find ourselves in the worst situations.

 

[Pizzabeak]

I'd rather think of people not willing to do as being in the same category as the people unable to do something. Doing otherwise relies on assumptions about the origin of the disability.

There is no "Exactly", it requires perspective, context and goal to define "do" or anything else. Unless you use it as everything it could be, I'm all for that kind of thinking but it makes questioning it irrelevant.

From my experience, no, those are two different things. You don't get to lump them in the same category for convenience. More often than not, or perhaps for speed, you usually can find people not willing the same ones not able. Just because humans can't "exactly", doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

 

[lightfire]

Why do people place such an emphasis on doing stuff? Why is everyone obsessed with, not necessarily "being productive", but with "creating" or doing available stuff?

For me: I define "do" by: "don't think, just do". Actually been meaning to live my life by those terms. Thinking (deeply) has not been productive for me, maybe its just what works for some people. But maybe because "doing" is good for the brain in some ways. But I'm not really sure what you mean by being productive vs creating.

 

[Cognisant]

Consider the lizard or spider, with their trademark trance. If you have a pet reptile or amphibian notice how these certain animals spend a lot of time frozen in motion. What are they doing? Before a lizard moves, what is it doing? Regulating body temperature, looking at stuff, thinking of what to do next..

The spider builds a web then waits for prey, sometimes making touch ups to the design. Otherwise it just stays still and waits; what is it doing? Sure, they don't have as great a need for entertainment as we do but still...

Ambush predators, what they're doing is energy conservation and when a lizard holds its head still it's looking for movement, unfortunately we don't have the luxury of waiting for meals to come our way.

In capitalism (etc) there's an emphasis on producing, for slightly obvious reasons. However, does that suggest everyone should be in the role of "creator" in some shape or form? If everyone were "creating" no one would consume.

People don't need to create stuff so much as create value, such value could be entertainment (e.g. busking), providing a service (e.g. retail workers), mitigating risk (e.g. security guards) and so on.

 

[Pizzabeak]

Lizards don't stay still that much, mostly when basking in the sun or on a heat rock, regulating body temperature. Spiders don't need to do that much while waiting in a web or building one by instinct, they have "book lungs" so still just breathe air. Otherwise their consciousness is more instinctual, they don't really think or ponder, just act mostly on instinct or even intuition. Any animal that interacts with humans have some degree of consciousness.