Is it acceptable to live a passive life?

It's up to each individual to lead whatever type of life they would like to lead, including a passive one, as long as they can sustain themselves and not put a drain on other people because of it. Otherwise it's nobody else's business.
 
i dont really believe in an inherent value of productivity. it can be useful or it can be useless to be productive but i think its not inherently either. it depends what is being achieved and why and how and what the various consequences are. id rather do absolutely nothing than waste my life running around trying to achieve some or other arbitrary goal, because at least id be a lot more comfortable and probably less grouchy to others around me too. maybe the goal is worthwhile, and maybe it isnt, but either way just being productive about the goal is not going to change the value of the goal.

sometimes i think the whole idea of self development is incoherent. its like this endless process of undirected improvement with no real ending or outcome. it seems to be a very ephemeral and generally poorly defined set of highly irrational cultural values and notions. i start to wonder how much is really "in there" to improve upon, whether the resources of the "self" can be cultivated to some certain ideal extent, or whether it is the cultivation that is valuable for its own sake - and then if so why? how absolutely certain can we be that it is valuable to do a particular thing for its own sake? i tend to think that there is value to personal development, but on the other hand the concepts surrounding this are all so totally nebulous, that i find i cant judge people for wanting to be passive about life and just taking everything as it comes. after all arent their lives probably difficult enough without adding my expectations for their development to the equation? i previously felt that it was very important to encourage people to develop to their full potential. now, not being able to determine what exactly constitutes such a process or such a potential, im not so sure. if they want to be entirely passive about life, i accept that they can do whatever they want to, and its really none of my business anyway. but i guess id rather they at least not go completely in the other direction - that they be considerate by trying not to wantonly harm others or drain the resources of the planet.
 
Well, if we're talking passivity in the sense of living in the world versus thinking about the world, then I think there's a great danger to living passively.

I think that actions speak louder than words in many cases. Actions are expressed decisions, whereas contemplation is the process of decision-making that remains open-ended. You can sit on an idea, turning it over for years and years, and never see the process come to any completion. I suppose you can enjoy the process for its own sake, but often it may be an expression of one's fear of commitment or some kind of avoidance tactic.

It really comes down to context.

Where self-development is concerned, it's not 'development' until you put your contemplation into any kind of action, in the form of a behaviour change or thought-habit. Otherwise, you can keep that proverbial self-file open indefinitely in the brainstorming stage and living more in a world of potential rather than actually living. There's always something to contemplate, there's always some aspect of yourself you haven't explored. But you are kidding yourself if you think you can ever come close to knowing yourself truly if all you do is lay on your back and contemplate your innerworld. The great irony is that as much as you are an infinite collection of thought potentials, you are also a being in this physical world and the more you opt out of participating in it, the smaller your inner world becomes and the smaller you become. To know yourself is to experience yourself in as many contexts as possible and that requires seeking out those contexts.

Does this mean you need to step on the super-go-getter treadmill of life? Not at all. But it does mean you need to get your ass off the couch or computer chair and experience something besides the things that your current comfort zone dictates. Again, your inner world expands only as your outer world does. How can you know what you really want or what you're capable of when you've been living in the same gear all the time?

One of the most fundamental laws of physics is that an object in motion stays in motion, while an object at rest stays at rest. The same applies to a human life. I believe the natural state of the human being is growth and curiosity; the forces at work behind comfort zones are rarely the by-products of our will. More likely, they are expressions of fear.

Too many times people indulge those fears by thinking they can just think them through. You can't. Fear is part of the resistance, the force that wants to slow you down and protect you and it will keep you from doing anything that means participating in the world. Growth and curiosity are the galvanizing force, the parts that bypass thinking and jump into taking authentic action. To live a good life, you need to allow the natural friction between the two rather than giving in completely to one another.

Balance in all things. Always.
 
Last edited:
pics said:
Our world moves at the speed of life, and most everyone is judged by how quickly they are able to fit into the new fast paced dynamic and busy-ness associated with the modern "productive" ethic of the world. As a result, it seems people are given the message that it's not ok to live a quiet or passive life. You must be doing something, somewhere outside, almost at all times to be "seen" as living or developing or growing. Our world seems less receptive or supportive of anyone's right to be passive. People who live a passive life are considered lazy and unproductive. The belief is you should be doing something and you must be seen doing it is also a related phenomenon.

So, what do you think of this trend in shunning passive living in today's world? Good or bad?
Click to expand...

Passivity is slow death.

Its much better to be productive, face questions like being and having, think and act rather than wasting your time and your life attempting to be an inanimate object.
 
Let's not forgive how many trades have been made obsolete by these modern times. It's also cheaper to be entertained and sustained. Society is ultimately making people passive by giving them what we biologically are told to need.

An’ she says, “Your debutante just knows what you need
But I know what you want”
- Bob Dylan "Stuck Inside of Mobile with the Memphis Blues Again"
 
A vaca is doing something. It is vital to recharge. How about a balance? You get important stuff done before it is "due" and you take time to recharge by camping, or whatever. Separate the two.
 
To the OP: I'd say under ideal circumstances leading a passive life is more than acceptable. However, there is widespread strife in today's world. I think the more thoughtful and introspective members of society should get more involved.
 
o_q said:
We're orbiting around these corporate black holes, faster and faster. We need employment, and we are pretty much subjected to slavery under those who suck in all the planet's resources/money/power.
Click to expand...

We have to realise that the people at the centre of those corporate black holes are agents of chaos

We need to stop playing their game

We don't need 'employment', we need sustainable shelter, nutritious food, clean water, renewable energy, community and the time to enjoy it and to pursue our interests and enjoy this beautiful planet

Here is a new story about how Monsanto, one of the groups at the centre of the corporate network has now been implicated in health problems around the world; their 'roundup' product has been linked to a kidney disease epidemic occuring in a number of countries...you know...the usual corporate stuff:

http://truth-out.org/news/item/2487...ey-disease-epidemic-will-ckdu-topple-monsanto

People need to start voting with their feet and saying 'NO' to the corporations, 'NO' to their products, 'NO' to the politicans they own, 'NO' to them taking our pensions, 'NO' to their media, 'NO' to their banking, 'NO' to their 'SMART' grid, 'NO' to their spy tech, 'NO' to their foreign wars, 'NO' to their various poisons etc etc

Lets start thinking about whats REALLY IMPORTANT in life and build a society around that...not corporate, consumerist hot air and junk

Whats REAL?
 
Last edited:
It wouldnt be acceptable to me, I'm not sure its actually possible.
 
lets say someone ie a human entity embraces personhood as a social construction that legally codifies and protects their ability to act as an individual in the world, to determine the effect they have on the world as an agent of change, and to be protected from interference in exercising this power. so then, beyond upholding the terms of that agreement, to try not to take actions that interfere with the similar legal personhood of other human entities, what obliges them to take any further action on the world one way or another? what is the source of such a debt to society that requires such action?

having accepted their personhood, perhaps they reject selfhood. maybe their personal priority is not to develop their self. they cant clearly determine what a self is or formulate appropriate directions for its development. they suspect its all a lot of pointless busywork thrust upon them by a values system that has no special relevance to their own life. so then, having decided that the development of self is not an ideal that they value, what obliges them to pursue it? maybe they couldnt be bothered, theyre contented to watch the sunrise or the television and allow the years to pass peacefully by. whose place is it to instruct them that something is missing in their life, if they have dettrmined it to be complete?
 
TheDaringHatTrick said:
Well, if we're talking passivity in the sense of living in the world versus thinking about the world, then I think there's a great danger to living passively.

I think that actions speak louder than words in many cases. Actions are expressed decisions, whereas contemplation is the process of decision-making that remains open-ended. You can sit on an idea, turning it over for years and years, and never see the process come to any completion. I suppose you can enjoy the process for its own sake, but often it may be an expression of one's fear of commitment or some kind of avoidance tactic.

It really comes down to context.

Where self-development is concerned, it's not 'development' until you put your contemplation into any kind of action, in the form of a behaviour change or thought-habit. Otherwise, you can keep that proverbial self-file open indefinitely in the brainstorming stage and living more in a world of potential rather than actually living. There's always something to contemplate, there's always some aspect of yourself you haven't explored. But you are kidding yourself if you think you can ever come close to knowing yourself truly if all you do is lay on your back and contemplate your innerworld. The great irony is that as much as you are an infinite collection of thought potentials, you are also a being in this physical world and the more you opt out of participating in it, the smaller your inner world becomes and the smaller you become. To know yourself is to experience yourself in as many contexts as possible and that requires seeking out those contexts.

Does this mean you need to step on the super-go-getter treadmill of life? Not at all. But it does mean you need to get your ass off the couch or computer chair and experience something besides the things that your current comfort zone dictates. Again, your inner world expands only as your outer world does. How can you know what you really want or what you're capable of when you've been living in the same gear all the time?
Click to expand...

the bolded is a really good point, well said [MENTION=1360]TheDaringHatTrick[/MENTION]. i'd wager to say that the reverse is also true, one's outer world grows in proportion to the expansion of one's inner world, since the latter determines your relatedness to external objects themselves. in the context of this thread you could say passivity to one's inner dynamic experiences is as "bad" (if either is bad) as passivity to the outer world.
 
Lark said:
Passivity is slow death.

Its much better to be productive, face questions like being and having, think and act rather than wasting your time and your life attempting to be an inanimate object.
Click to expand...

lol. and sooner or later you'll be knocked back to animation by actual inanimate objects anyway, if not other animate objects. nothing living can stay totally stationary for long. even trees adapt to the soil and grow their branches out according to the level of light, etc. surrounding them. every living thing works in cohesion with its environment, firstly out of biological necessity. whether that still applies to humans in a modern social context, however, i don't know, maybe not. i'm guessing that's the context @pics was referring to, and to the social impetus to be "proactively" animate, as opposed to simply reacting and adapting to the needs of the environment.
 
TinyBubbles said:
lol. and sooner or later you'll be knocked back to animation by actual inanimate objects anyway, if not other animate objects. nothing living can stay totally stationary for long. even trees adapt to the soil and grow their branches out according to the level of light, etc. surrounding them. every living thing works in cohesion with its environment, firstly out of biological necessity. whether that still applies to humans in a modern social context, however, i don't know, maybe not. i'm guessing that's the context @pics was referring to, and to the social impetus to be "proactively" animate, as opposed to simply reacting and adapting to the needs of the environment.
Click to expand...

I think that all the "pop zen" or "power of now" style ideas are responses to alienation from social character or stressing about the past and future.

The reality though is that thinking about those pop philosophies for any length of time would reveal them to be pretty terrible, possessing no past to learn from, no memory, isnt attractive, having no future to hope for or plan for or work towards isnt attractive either.

I can understand alienation with the social character, conforming to it may bring success and success brings happiness but it can be a fleeting deal when its conformity to social requisites rather than human nature. Although suggesting that its an easy things to do, uncover what traits in your personality are social character traits and which are your own, or attempting to live productively and eschew social character, that's a mistake. Nothing easy about those things.
 
Lark said:
I think that all the "pop zen" or "power of now" style ideas are responses to alienation from social character or stressing about the past and future.

The reality though is that thinking about those pop philosophies for any length of time would reveal them to be pretty terrible, possessing no past to learn from, no memory, isnt attractive, having no future to hope for or plan for or work towards isnt attractive either.

I can understand alienation with the social character, conforming to it may bring success and success brings happiness but it can be a fleeting deal when its conformity to social requisites rather than human nature. Although suggesting that its an easy things to do, uncover what traits in your personality are social character traits and which are your own, or attempting to live productively and eschew social character, that's a mistake. Nothing easy about those things.
Click to expand...

No, I think you're just bad at it.
 
Idk, I just live. No one gives me a hard time about it.

Who is giving you a hard time?
 
I would argue that if someone perceives that others are judging, then maybe they are actually the judger. Wait, auto doesn't like that word. I don't like it when I can not make up my own words without the red judgmental squiggly line. That bastard. Always judging me.
 
finifugal said:
I would argue that if someone perceives that others are judging, then maybe they are actually the judger. Wait, auto doesn't like that word. I don't like it when I can not make up my own words without the red judgmental squiggly line. That bastard. Always judging me.
Click to expand...

or on the other hand, maybe others really are judging them. oops we are right back where we started.
 
Those who matter don't mind, and those who mind don't matter.

Live the life you want to live.
 
[MENTION=4115]Lark[/MENTION]

Thumb me down all you want, but if you think somebody advocates total inertia, or that there's no value to these things, then you're clearly either misreading sources or reading the wrong ones and maybe you should stop thinking you know all kinds of stuff for a change.
 
sprinkles said:
@Lark

Thumb me down all you want, but if you think somebody advocates total inertia, or that there's no value to these things, then you're clearly either misreading sources or reading the wrong ones and maybe you should stop thinking you know all kinds of stuff for a change.
Click to expand...

I've not read any posts from you in a long time which werent just emotional discharge.

I hope you're better in time though and can discuss like everyone else.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top