Dingo the Dissident

THE BLOG OF DISQUIET : Qweir Notions in the Armpit of Diogenes by DINGO the DISSIDENT binge-thinker since February 2008.

Tuesday, 19 May 2020

I doubt that there has ever been

a Society for the Abolition of Souls,
because those who think that they have them
want to keep them,
and those who know that they don't have souls
don't feel the need to abolish them.
I am the founder and only member so far
of the Society for the Abolition of Goals.


HomoSapiens57532719 said...

I maintain that one who has nothing to practice, has nothing to live for. If needs be, one ought to set goals.

Bearz said...

Is the policy for the Society for the Abolition of Goals (S.A.G) absolutist? That is all goals are to be completely abolished, or relativist? Where the aim is to set fewer and fewer goals proportionately, the more quietly and successfully to demote the idea of setting goals in future? I would like to suggest that the relativist approach is the less goal oriented of the two approaches and therefore the more logical path.

Anonymous said...

Oh please, you make it sound as if having "nothing to practice, nothing to live for" was a bad thing!

It's the old, old conflict between those who consider the vita contemplativa as an abomination and those who trive in it, or at least, find a passive existence much more palatable or bearable than the vita activa, vulgo "real life."

It is two distinct species oddly sharing the name of 'homo sapiens sapiens'.


Wofl said...

The Society for the Abolition of Goals is, of course, Goal-less. Our hundreds of thousands of UNsigned-up members are so goallessly apathetic that we would hardly be aware of any reduction in the global incidence of goal-setting. In any case, if there were to be a general reduction in goals (achieved or not) it would have nothing to do with us.

HomoSapiens57532719 said...

The two "species'" manifestations of practice may differ, but their need for it is all the same.

And yes, it is a bad thing (so far as one opts to go on living, though opt may be the wrong word).