by Terry 13 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
I would go so far as to say you are stripped of "self" by the longterm associations maintained in the Watchtowr Society. There is nothing that is purely you. You meld into the borg and become like a cell in a system with only a function and no autonomy.
I have always found it puzzling that God would give us autonomy and an intellect and personality as an individual and yet demand you simply let go of it like the string of a kite to become a drone.
I have always found it puzzling that God would give us autonomy and an intellect and personality as an individual and yet demand you simply let go of it like the string of a kite to become a drone.
Yep, very illogical there.
Another thing that doesn't add up, a little off topic perhaps, but apparently this is the day for me to go off topic.
Anyway, humans are instilled with an intense desire for justice and a distaste for the opposite. Even those who walk on other people's rights, call foul when someone walks on theirs. So, why would we have this profound need for justice and then be villified, shunned, hated, or destroyed for responding to it? I'm not talking so much about vengence, but the feeling of uselessness that comes from having been played a fool. The shame that comes from seeing the person who wronged you, honored and apparently above prosecution.
I have a lot of reasons why I don't buy into the bible but one of the biggest is the LONG LIST of people throughout history who have found it such a convenient excuse for killing, pillaging, raping, and abandoning their fellow man.
"Self" imo is not "given" by anyone to anybody (to whom would it be given, by the way, if the "receiver" is unseparable from the "gift"?). We are our own construction even though all the materials for it may be construed as either "given" or "simply there".
Only by focusing down to an arbitrary part of a whole (an individual, a family, a country, or even the human species) can you separate and morally hierarchise "good" and "bad," "positive" and "negative," etc. That is obviously helpful from everyone's relative standpoint. Blissful, healthy shortsightedness perhaps. From a broader perspective every time something goes "up" something else goes "down," and vice versa. Self-sacrifice may well be a "loser"'s philosophy, but without any "loser" there would be no "winner".
Of course, as Nietzsche pointed out, the ideology of self-sacrifice may be promoted as the loser's strategy of resentment against the winner -- the weapon, poison rather than sword, of the weak and sick and ugly against the strong and healthy and beautiful -- and the latter are right in despising it from their perspective. This doesn't mean that the "losers" are not warranted to apply it to themselves, as an integral part of the "big picture". That's the part of Paulinism Nietzsche missed imo. Not "everybody has to lose so that s/he may win," but "some have to lose so that others may win".
"Self" imo is not "given" by anyone to anybody (to whom would it be given, by the way, if the "receiver" is unseparable from the "gift"?). We are our own construction even though all the materials for it may be construed as either "given" or "simply there".
Stimulating ideas, Narkissos, as usual from you.
By way of discussion I'd share these few observations.
Studies done with identical twins separated at birth demonstrate nothing if not that we come partially pre-assembled as to our likes and dislikes and proclivities. We can modify, of course. Some of us can. But, genetically we seem to be a hand dealt as in poker. We make the most of what we have through how we "represent" our value to others and how we bet our hand. But, a pair of deuces won't beat a pair of Kings in a real showdown. It can only be won on a bluff.
Only by focusing down to an arbitrary part of a whole (an individual, a family, a country, or even the human species) can you separate and morally hierarchise "good" and "bad," "positive" and "negative,"
There are only individuals. The various combinations you reference (family, country, etc) are constructs. It requires an act of withdrawl from personal advantage to completely fit oneself into groups in a quid pro quo idealism.
As far as the "good" and the "bad" and the "positive" and the "negative", I'd say these are more practical matters than moral givens. What works for the individual will not necessarily work in a group dynamic and this is what leads to social graces such as courtesy and manners. It is a modification of immediate gratification for a strategic win over the long haul.
Self-sacrifice may well be a "loser"'s philosophy, but without any "loser" there would be no "winner".
In a Zero Sum game, you are right. But, not every game is zero sum. Tic Tac Toe and Chess can lead to a draw. Self-Help gurus advance a theory of "win-win" and in some situations this is possible. But, for the most part, the greatest social skill is in winning without pissing off and alienating the losers.
The Watchtower Society pretends that the freedom we give up as a JW is compensated fairly by the "ultimate rewards" of everlasting life in a paradise. Yet, suspiciously enough, the labor and sacrifices take place in the HERE AND NOW!
Not "everybody has to lose so that s/he may win," but "some have to lose so that others may win".
Hmmmm, there is a Third Way. In mutually assured destruction scenarios, the only way to "win" is to not play.
Abstaining from engagement is also a strategy in daily affairs with others. Not necessarily a pacifism. But, a recognition that choosing one's fights carefully is a skill well worth developing.
