Development of a Philosophical Framework to Optimise Contribution
The challenge is, God given, to write my stuff in stimulus to news events but not waste to them by posting on a news community in which while there are like minds, I am too good to be wasting my stuff by posting there. Yes, I could find a news community which values my contribution but that requires searching, the stimulus being a main stream site is not the same as a site which will value my contribution. Ultimately contributors are most valued when they are paid for content, which is not the same as being part of a community. There are many different formats for contributing. The freest form is to publish a book anonymously and seek to sell it (from pamphlet to POD). The other form is to blog and monetise the blog.
This challenge must be undertaken at the same time as a variety of others. In this respect it is not difficult to fall short, especially since the other challenges could be summarised into the categories of serve God (so no legacy matters save that of God’s kingdom, namely worthy acts that leave no “purposeful” legacy are often the best since there selfless act and self-serving act are by definition opposites) and things to survive. Survival means from the basic human act such as washing to the most complex acts such as earning a living or defending family members. I do not have the option to include the challenge of writing philosophy as a means to earn a living unless I learn to how to do so. The challenge of writing philosophy is to contribute something.
The development framework here should therefore be categorised into 3 parts:
2. Serving God
It would be perfectly possible to write three development frameworks. However Seneca would hold “Philosophy” to be the only thing to concern oneself. Philosophically that dramatic thought of his could be challenged both in the practical and philosophical approach, not least in terms of a pre-Christian life as Seneca had. However his texts do no suffer from not knowing The Lord through Jesus Christ, our saviour, such was his wisdom and learnedness. So I am not dependent on a need to qualify my admiration of his philosophy by decrying his pre-Christian writings because I know my faith is strong. Rather like most Christian stoics the wealth Seneca accumulated during his lifetime in the service of Roman emperors qualifies his advice at some turns. Of course one not must beguile oneself too much with the higher invocations to ignore one’s own interests, always bearing in mind that in can be the duty of writers to implore their public to one form of conduct while pursuing another course themselves. However it is the delight in the service of philosophy to be able to hold contradictory positions, although also the continual work to uphold the dramatic tension between both. The escape of restfulness never arrives, save in death or absolute poverty. The latter full of the harshest claims upon the self to survive that the beneficial effects on the mind are while cherished, best done so in reflection while not in such a condition where the only challenge is to exit the condition of real poverty.
So the weight of wealth preys upon the mind, both philosophy and Christian duty offering escape. Survival does not offer escape but rather immunity. Hence a rich man working hard to become richer needs no escape, justification is felt as a product of the immunity. So how do I compile PHILOSOPHY and SERVING GOD into my writing framework without awaking SURVIVAL more than a trifle. For contributing to my own self-interests such as financial (receiving a payment) starts to stir the beast. Equally so not contributing, where “time money” is lost where writing is lost. It would be better to spend that time serving God, simply reading The Bible for instance, than scribbling political nonsense which makes no contribution. Unless of course those scribbles were a philosophical pursuit. In that case circularity of the argument applies. So what is contribution?