Squeers,
Based on the rating figures that's a bet you have already lost. But I guess facts are not something someone looking for "real" self fulfilment would be interested in. Get back to us when you find something in that belly button worth sharing, rather than the cliche fluff you have provided thus far.

Squeers, did you just imply that the ABC exhibits modest “intellectualism”?

My goodness, you really are on planet Squeers. So tell me, What University, anywhere on this planet teaches intelligence?

It is you that is trying to justify your case based upon intelligence, which you imply provokes those who are, dare I say it, less intelligent. You confuse education with intelligence. Yes ABC journalists may have University Educations, so do those who run the planet and drive productivity. That requires common sense, which I might add is also not on the curriculum at Universities.

Yes, you do present as a “leftist” which leaves you with a restricted reference point, if you are on the left that is the one perspective you cannot see. So what has the world dished out to you that has left you with such a jaundiced perspective of your fellow humans? Or was it just University, the same excuse for ABC journalists and staffers?

You are not making much sense.

You mistake intellectualism, modest as it is, for leftism,
Squeers,
Intellectualism is not modest, intellect however is in rather modest supply. Big words you used in your post, you must be an ABC journo ?

Dear Squeers,

Make no mistake - I am not against community as such, only against communities that force people to take part in their aspirations without first asking them for their consent. There is a worlds differnce between the conscious and voluntary accepting of the harsh and disciplined life of a Zen monastery vs. the forced subjection to nanny laws made by some ignorant and materialistic government of no spiritual credentials, with the sole excuse of you being born somewhere with a human body.

In that regard, the Left is no less guilty of materialism than its corporate "enemy" and so are the ordinary people who look for "meaning" in shop-windows (what a joke since nobody ever found that elusive meaning). Stressing all day that "Oh, why do they have and we don't" sends the wrong message as if what "they" have is so desirable, indeed the holy-grail...

Real self-fulilment cannot be granted from the outside. Even if you for yourself know who and what you are, there is nothing more harmful to another's spiritual development than trying to tell them who and what they are, which you attempted on me in your last post. One can only find the Truth of who and what they are in due course by their own process, and your intervention simply pulls the breaks on their contemplation, satisfying them with words rather than with a direct experience. Whether your ideas are true or not, they are still just that - ideas, and you should not shove them into somebody else's mind more than you would dump your physical garbage in their kitchen.

Of course consumerism is not the answer - but how is one to know that without experimentation? Compassion means that you allow your children to play, to try out things that work and things that don't work, then reach their own conclusions. What merit is there for having all the answers to begin with? What merit is there when having only one choice, only the "right way" while being denied the option of choosing it consciously?

Yuyutsu
I’ve made no “attempt” on you, but am merely pointing out to you that our sense of self is ambiguous at best, that the opinions we cherish, when analysed closely, can be conceived merely as discursive composites, derived magpie-fashion from the host culture, or indeed from the vast historical and multicultural intertext. Most of the “thinking” on OLO, and elsewhere, comes ready-made; hackneyed phrases strung together to form strains of ideological claptrap (how I would designate my other interlocutors above). I acknowledge these “ideas” are just that, but I make no apology for positing them. They are for you to consider or discard as you see fit. This is an opinion site, Yuyutsu, and by joining in you concede to having your opinions challenged. I’m not dumping in your mind any more than I am in your kitchen.
I don’t know what to make of your last paragraph, I have no dogmatic notions of the “right way” or of imposing anything on anyone. I’m in favour of “real” freedom. I’m confronted by a world that imposes on me and all of us, a kind of materialistic Pascal’s wager that offers freedom of choice (like candy) within a very limited spectrum to those who can afford to buy it. You imply that we are capable of free choice, but this is surely an illusion as we only have negative choices, Bartleby (The Scrivener) choices. Freedom of choice under liberalism is first of all a matter of privilege, of fortune good or bad. At worst it’s a copout, the rationalising of the wealthy, privileged and elitist who want minimal government to hamper their divinely vouchsafed freedom and their precious “individuality” (lol). Meanwhile the underprivileged and disadvantaged are dismissed as wastrels for making bad choices. As if it was a level playing field or either side was uncoerced.
I don’t know you, Yuyutsu (but you seem thoughtful), this is my 350 word assessment of Liberalism.

Dear Squeers,

When speaking of freedom of choice, I obviously am not referring to some simplistic freedom to take what you want out of the supermarket.

We are all climbing the ladder, but at the end of the ladder is not a palace full of servants, a fleet of Rolls-Royce, pacific islands, a gorgeous harem, world-rullership, trillions of $$$'s or anything of the like. At the end of the ladder is enlightenment - complete freedom from worldly attachments.

It is silly for those below to envy those above them on that ladder, or to wish for their downfall (my brief assessment of socialism), because everyone will get there eventually, and the last thing you need when you will eventually be near the top is for those below to pull you down. On the contrary, the ones at the top should inspire those who are not yet there, knowing that their turn will come too. In fact, it takes no money to climb, it only takes the willingness to let go. How then can anyone be underprivileged or disadvantaged?

Yes, I am aware of those you mentioned who seek freedom in order to amass wealth. They are mistaken too. Wealth is meant as an aid for attaining freedom and not vice-versa. Wealth can be useful to protect oneself during sensitive parts of the journey from the corrupting influence and cruelty of society. Once you are enlightened of course, nothing can corrupt you, so wealth is no longer necessary.

Freedom of choice is first and foremost a spiritual value. One of its outcomes is responsibility. Also, no compassion is possible without freedom of choice: wealth-distribution yes, but no compassion can be involved so long as the wealth is not freely-given.

Materialism, be it of the Left or of the Right, considers life a 0-sum game: Power is 0-sum, Wealth and resources are 0-sum, Life is not!

Finally, what's wrong with negative choices? Choosing to refrain from drugs, alcohol, bad company and commercial channels, or choosing to forsake anger and not feel like a victim, etc.? are these all trifling matters?