Mr. Zebra;163530 wrote:see below...You are going to take a lot of work...Ok, thanks for the response. A few questions to clarify what you mean.
Why do you suggest to work on my skills, when it seems fundamentally wrong to bend to other's will to "get along". Is'nt this the groundwork for deceit?
Quote:My rain clouds? Where are you coming from with that. I come in, I do my job, I leave. Why do I have to feign interest in co-workers viewpoints. These things are irrelevant to whether or not i can produce an accurate account transaction summary.
Feign it for a while, and you might find people like it and feign back, and in the meantime you will have found a new game to play called: How can I discover what I have in common with this person so we have some better reason to cooperate toward a common goal...
Quote:Not devious at all, but certaily intelligent... People do not survive by virtue of being better than others, but by social networking and cooperation; ad f you think you can live without these things Ithink you are wrong...[/SIZE]Happiest people form alliances? That sounds very devious. Why form alliances when Companies and Corp's are constantly trying to promote tolerance to diversity.
Quote:Chickens peck each others butts and an old rooster will hound a young rooster right into hell... Does not sound like much fun to me, but it works for the chickens...In the matter of judgements, it sounds to me like you are as good at it as anyone... Most people actually do have something better to do, like their jobs... But if they cannot compete they find other ways of surviving, like being critical, gossiping, or harshly judgeing their co-workers..If you can beat them no other way, abuse them, label them, amd lie about them... This does not really help much...Even the most talented individual, the best worker and most intelligent can lose his job if he cannot gain the support of his co workers...The boss may have to fire his best because he cannot fire everyone else... [/SIZE]On mediocrity; I am not talking about wanting people to perform better, I am talking about people claiming to be happy, yet still placing judgement and criticizing other people, having nothing better to do. I don't think that is happiness.
Quote:One of those muckrake writers of the last century writing about the slaughterhouses of Chicago said Marriage is the curse of the working class...It is because once well married and with children a man or woman has no defense against the indigities of the workplace, and can only shut up and be quieted when injured... Their love and their relationship with their family if it is healthy makes them happy to endure injustice so their children can have better, but because of this the whole working class is sold out...[/SIZE]I am not on Payroll. I don't expect people to live on short wages and give a crud. Trust me, I live on a short wage. What message are you trying to convey when you say "put a shet job in perspective"?
Quote:On getting along; Why do i have to greet everyone who comes through the door when i know they are a selfish person. I am busy attentive to my work. Why do i have to pretend to care when most of the talk is irrelevant to the job i do. I mean if people want to talk among themselves, great. But just because I dont care what kind of vaccuum cleaner deal you got at Sear's, doesn't make me an anti-social jerk. Or does it?
We are all selfish, and all have faults... As with any relationship, and any form of relationship: We all need to survive, and we all need to be recognized...If you think you don't need people and can make it alone, I would like to see you try...
I could careless if people take an interest in me at work. I just dont like it when it influences an opinion that is irrelevant to anyhting performance based and just hurts the person subjected person.
On your blurb of having people care for me. It's nice to have people be concerned for your well-being. But to judge others because you think you know what your talking about does not make much sense to me. FYI: I am not a supervisor.
BEFORE THE LAW stands a doorkeeper on guard. To this doorkeeper there comes a man from the country and prays for admittance to the Law. But the doorkeeper says that he cannot grant admittance at the moment. The man thinks it over and then asks if he will be allowed in later. "It is possible," says the doorkeeper, "but not at the moment." Since the gate stands open, as usual, and the doorkeeper steps to one side, the man stoops to peer through the gateway into the interior. Observing that, the doorkeeper laughs and says: "If you are so drawn to it, just try to go in despite my veto. But take note: I am powerful. And I am only the least of the doorkeepers. From hall to hall there is one doorkeeper after another, each more powerful than the last. The third doorkeeper is already so terrible that even I cannot bear to look at him." These are difficulties the man from the country has not expected; the Law, he thinks, should surely be accessible at all times and to everyone, but as he now takes a closer look at the doorkeeper in his fur coat, with his big sharp nose and long, thin, black Tartar beard, he decides that it is better to wait until he gets permission to enter. The doorkeeper gives him a stool and lets him sit down at one side of the door. There he sits for days and years. He makes many attempts to be admitted, and wearies the doorkeeper by his importunity. The doorkeeper frequently has little interviews with him, asking him questions about his home and many other things, but the questions are put indifferently, as great lords put them, and always finish with the statement that he cannot be let in yet. The man, who has furnished himself with many things for his journey, sacrifices all he has, however valuable, to bribe the doorkeeper. The doorkeeper accepts everything, but always with the remark: "I am only taking it to keep you from thinking you have omitted anything." During these many years the man fixes his attention almost continuously on the doorkeeper. He forgets the other doorkeepers, and this first one seems to him the sole obstacle preventing access to the Law. He curses his bad luck, in his early years boldly and loudly; later, as he grows old, he only grumbles to himself. He becomes childish, and since in his yearlong contemplation of the doorkeeper he has come to know even the fleas in his fur collar, he begs the fleas as well to help him and to change the doorkeeper's mind. At length his eyesight begins to fail, and he does not know whether the world is really darker or whether his eyes are only deceiving him. Yet in his darkness, he is now aware of a radiance that streams inextinguishably from the gateway of the Law. Now he has not very long to live. Before he dies, all his experiences in these long years gather themselves in his head to one point, a question he has not yet asked the doorkeeper. He waves him nearer, since he can no longer raise his stiffening body. The doorkeeper has to bend low towards him, for the difference in height between them has altered much to the man's disadvantage. "What do you want to know now?" asks the doorkeeper; "you are insatiable." "Everyone strives to reach the Law," says the man, "so how does it happen that for all these many years no one but myself has ever begged for admittance?" The doorkeeper recognizes that the man has reached his end, and to let his failing senses catch the words, roars in his ear: "No one else could ever be admitted here, since this gate was made only for you. I am now going to shut it."
I think there's selfishness in all of us. Also I personally don't believe in an afterlife, don't think my society is terribly just, am disappointed sometimes at what many other humans spend their money and time on. Of course they probably wonder why I don't pile up possessions and make babies. No easy answer, in my opinion. I do that when I became a happier person, I wanted to kick my past self for wasting all that opportunity, all that health. I'm still health, fortunately, but how many hours did I waste in angst? Who knows maybe yesterday's angst was the entry fee to today's not-too-shabby happiness. In my opinion, certain questions are never answered but only forgotten in fascination with other things. Keats said something about this sort of obliteration. Kafka wrote a parable in the Castle. Oh yeah, I think literature helps. Dostoevsky will make you laugh at everything. But here's that Kafka:
Recon... If you have ever suffered any terrible loss you will see that the urge to curse God and die is very powerful...
every moment lost feeling sorry for yourself about the unfairness of it all is only wasted time you will never have back.
.The whole scene, of God wagering on a man is a remarkable thing, a total reversal of the average situation, where instead of us having faith in God, it is God having faith in one of us...And still Job was right to put it in God's face...It is not fair, and that, if you believe Jesus, Job's protoge, is not what God does on this earth...What ever ones situation, it is better to deserve better than to enjoy better and deserve worse...
I know the feeling, and no doubt various circumstances could bring this feeling back to me. If I lean toward the positive, it's because I want to live it up while I can. I feel "God's" shadow on me, on all of us. Seize what love and positivity one can, is my view. Dwell on the high things. Much of our suffering can be avoided, I think, but certainly not all of it. To love is a risk, and yet also perhaps the deepest aspect of life.
---------- Post added 05-15-2010 at 02:09 PM ----------
Exactly! And this is why I love the book of Job. Job and the boys sit around applying their human standards of justice to something beyond them, the cruelty and the beauty in the Nature Of Things, and God's retort from the whirlwind is deep.
---------- Post added 05-15-2010 at 02:11 PM ----------
Yes, this wager is great. Jung presents man as "God's" morality. Man is moral. God is not. God is a giant brutal baby, who thinks by fits and starts, and I'm thinking of this O.T. in general. A bratty teenaged war -God with pets. Perhaps he represents man's terrible brutal past, what he must leave behind to become rational and just. So Job was right, in human terms, to question the justice of God. This element is also in the book. It's a rich text.
God; if there were such a being is beyond our understanding... So what if God does not give us justice??? Does that take from us the obligation to make each other whole, and give justice to one and all???...Not as I conceive of the situation... When the rich have and the poor suffer it is not the fault of God, and it is not fate; but it is proof that our social forms are not working as they should, because if they were, then good would result from them...