Yuyutsu,

I was into Theravada Buddhism for several years, but I don't like your ladder metaphor; the Buddha's idea was renunciation and the goal was more oblivian (escape from Dukkha) that the rather high-sounding "enlightenment" (more an honorific bestowed on the Buddha: "the enlightened one").
With dessicating understatement, the Buddha deemed life "unsatisfactory" (which is why Nietzche condemned Buddhism {and Christianity} for offering no hope in "this" world).
There is no evidence of any legitimate (biological/spiritual) hierarchy among social humans (except perhaps when an elder is appointed by humans), only that the concept has long been used to rationalise, and tyrannise over, inequality.
Liberalism tries to legitimise this relationship, material disparity, as an impartial, fiscal truth (as if our reality were legitimately economic!). Spiritual upward mobility is little different to the capitalist kind; it's "cultural capital" (Bourdieu), and enlightenment is surely seeing beyond that too?
True materialism is rich in philosophy and goes way back. It doesn't turn its back on this world, in favour of mythical heavenly realms that appeal to the ego, but tries to change things for the better (techne). Materialism is thus not a zero sum philosophy, though the current shallow materialism we live under is. Rich and poor is zero sum, though strictly speaking zero sum is an abstraction with no practical equivalent, (except perhaps energy).
Finally, the negative choices you mention are philosophical luxuries (commodities). The negative choices available to the underprivileged include the right to starve in the street, or become an acetic. Like Bartleby, one might "prefer not to" (partake in the vicious, degrading and lop-sided exchange "civilised" life is reduced to), and exercise that choice (as Bartleby does) by dying of obstinacy.
The world could be arranged such that positive choices were available. Having young children, I'm not ready to embrace renunciation just yet.
But I'm way off topic. Thanks for the exchange.

Dear Squeers,

Yes, enlightenment goes beyond it all, and in the deepest sense we are indeed all equal, since Atman=Brahman, but so long as we are not yet there, the Hindus recognized that people are not equal and categorized people into castes according to their level of ability to take responsibility: Workers (Shudras), Tradespeople (Vaishyas), Warriors/Leaders (Kshatrias) and God-People (Brahamins).
Yes, they made a mess of it (or perhaps it degenerated into a mess over the ages): they mistakingly believed that castes have rigid boundaries rather than being a continuum, and that they are automatically inherited from parents to children: that of course renders the concept most unpopular - yet it has a true factual basis. People do differ in their ability to take responsibility! It is also statistically true that it USUALLY goes in the family.

It is a scientific fact that people are not equal, never been. That of course should never be used to justify tyrannising. One should exercise compassion towards all sentient beeing, not just humans, and I am sure you wouldn't claim that a cow and a man have an equal capacity to take responsibility, or to seek enlightenment.

People do not starve in the streets, not in Australia. You look at the "poor" "working-"class here and find that, although they have a chronic negative bank-balance, they keep more electronic gadgets than those "who have", drive 4-wheel-drives in the city (the devil knows how they got them), use air-conditioners with their windows open (never considering their next electricity-bill), smoke, drink, gamble, swear, and carry a host of bad habits borne by a host of poor choices.

These are not ascetics either, nor Bartlebys: these are irresponsible people whom the Australian government favours and take pity on (not true compassion), giving them an unlimited line of credit, because this government, instead of Leaders (Kshatriyas) consists of Shudras, irresponsible just as their favourite subjects and contemptful of those who behave responsibly and strive and sacrifice to improve themselves, materially and spiritually. They even have a justification for it, it's called "tall poppy syndrome". So much for democracy...

One thing that concerns me with the Drum is that it has been running a series of articles from Essential Media Communications.

That the national broadcaster is giving such free reign to a company of spin doctors who openly boast that 'we drove the Howard Government out of power', and who are openly committed to campaigning for left-wing causes surely raises questions of conflict of interest.

Who is to say that EMC's Drum articles are not part of a paid-for campaign - especially given that they boast about their 'cutting edge digital and online campaigning'?

Questions in the comments sections of EMC's Drum articles, directly asking if they were part of a paid campaign are studiously ignored by the author, except for one that somewhat disingenuously denied having the ALP as a client. When I replied that not only had their best known campaign been paid for by the ACTU and which EMC themselves claim drove out the Howard government, but that EMC had also worked for the (Labor) Victorian government, no further answer was forthcoming.

Yuyutsu,

My suspicion is that there are deep mysteries to our existence, possibly meaningful ones, but since there is no reliable evidence (discounting also, indeed especially, subjective credulousness) to support anthropocentricity in general, and since material existence “is” both manifest and “unsatisfactory”, I treat it as our most pressing reality. Spirituality is a leisure activity, ergo a luxury indulged according to means. I am thus a (qualified) materialist: there is no reason to presume that our metaphysical rambles are anything more than that. Certainly religion (broadly speaking) has had no positive historical effect on material reality.
The caste system is itself a rationalisation designed to preserve the status quo. You surely don’t argue that anything so arbitrary as caste divides individuals according to merit? You surely agree that such a system entraps worthy individuals at the bottom while artificially, and without merit, maintaining corrupt and worthless individuals at the top? I can see that in a perfect world, where each sphere is dignified and respected, such a system might work, but in reality they are used to denigrate and impoverish, and to maintain perennial power.
“People do differ in their ability to take responsibility!”Bbut history has surely taught us to be wary of those who step-up? And if certain attributes do run in families, what does that prove but that nothing succeeds like success, or failure? It appeals to the vanity of those who fancy they come from an exalted line, but it’s just old money and all the more decadent for that.
“It is a scientific fact that people are not equal, never been”. “Scientific facts” don’t impress me much; they’re human “facts”, replete with human foibles. Humans may not be equal but there’s little qualitative difference. It’s first about expectation, and the about opportunity. Cows and humans are qualitatively different, humans and humans are not, it’s just privilege and vanity.

cont..

..cont.

“People do not starve in the streets, not in Australia. You look at the "poor" "working-"class here and find that, although they have a chronic negative bank-balance, they keep more electronic gadgets than those "who have", drive 4-wheel-drives in the city (the devil knows how they got them), use air-conditioners with their windows open (never considering their next electricity-bill), smoke, drink, gamble, swear, and carry a host of bad habits borne by a host of poor choices”.
People are the product of their society. Modern western humans have been bred to be selfish consumers and behave according to their lights. They did not generate spontaneously, though they evince spontaneous pathologies, incumbent upon the role our society demands of them. Humans are not by nature vicious; it can be bred into them, but they make sickly hybrids. Ours is a sick society.

“These are not ascetics either, nor Bartlebys: these are irresponsible people whom the Australian government favours and take pity on (not true compassion), giving them an unlimited line of credit, because this government, instead of Leaders (Kshatriyas) consists of Shudras, irresponsible just as their favourite subjects and contemptful of those who behave responsibly and strive and sacrifice to improve themselves, materially and spiritually. They even have a justification for it, it's called "tall poppy syndrome". So much for democracy...”
Our Australian government is not a government, any more than the US and the rest. Modern government is the via-media of capital; it has no policies based on “good government” (name me one?). Government is merely the stoker; it shovels coals in pin-stripes! whatever will burn goes into the furnace that makes capital. It’s a fire sale and everything’s consumable.
“those who behave responsibly and strive and sacrifice to improve themselves, materially and spiritually” are the lowest caste of all, the self-satisfied minions of the system who, if they were truly worthy would be rebelling against it rather than feathering their nests and puffing-up their plumage”.
The supreme merit of the ABC is it is, at its best, self-reflective on our behalf, and critical!

Dear Squeers,

I must go back to Pascal's Wager which you mentioned earlier: it is far better to live "as if" there is something beyond matter, because if only matter exists, then you will eventually lose everything no-matter-what. Matter will not last forever, our human body will not last forever, our society and our contributions to it will not last forever, humanity will not last forever. Treating these as a goal unto itself and considering them too important is therefore a mistake, these are only means.

Those who are not interested in spirit may consider it luxury/leisure, but that's only a poor excuse for even a poor person can afford to meditate an hour a day, for example. It is of course a matter of priority: you may prefer to have a family instead, but that's no more than luxury/leisure as well.

Anything can be abused. Religions have been badly abused. The caste system has been badly abused, so much that Gandhi wanted to cancel it completely. Indeed, one can use castes as a pretext for denigrating, impovershing and maintaining perennial power, or they may appeal to one's vanity - that's abuse, but it does not change the underlying facts of life. Castes should only be used to describe human reality as it is anyway, not to exaggerate its trends.

The thought of being a product of society is most depressing, but fortunately we do have the ability to exercise our free choice, step out and shape our life to one degree or another. That degree of independence can be attributed to one's level of consciousness. Just as there are differences between humans and cows, it is irrational to claim that such differences do not exist between humans. You think that those differences in ability are insignificant, counter to my own experience. I do consider consciousness to be the only thing that makes life worthwhile.

It is possible for example to step out and reject society's call to be a selfish consumer. One need not even subscribe to the notion of "modern western humans".

(continued...)