What is "Joy in Work," and how do we get it?

[Kromkowski@aol.com]

<<
<< If we create obstacles and barriers to learning and doing good work 
well, then that would be like painting the light bulbs in our homes black.  
In other words, we'd be defeating the purpose. >>

Which, of course, leads us directly to each of the 14 Points (perhaps 
especially to Points 8, 9, 11, and 12).

We might also expand on JD's, 

<<The natural essence of humans is to be "learners" and to want to do good 
work well.>> 
by rephrasing this to, "The natural essence of humans is to have/experience 
joy, which, through time, requires never-ending-advancement/ learning 
throughout life."<<

I won't quibble with your rephrasing, too much. 

I was attempting to without adding, too much, boil down D.  Now, to add my 2 
cents, here is where I am coming from:

There are two components to our essence:

this "learning" thingy

and 

this "doing good work well" thingy.

If well follow Hannah Arendt's, The Human Condition, and Pope John Paul's "On 
Work", back in time through the philosophic and theological precursors we come
to the idea of

the contemplative life,  this learning thingy, which might also be called the 
"Spirit"

and

the active life, this work or co-creation thingy, which might also be called 
the "Material"

but what we also come up with is the idea that we are "composite" beings. I 
use the word "composite" to mean that we are a system which is made of these 
parts, but as we known the Whole is something different from merely the sum, 
it includes the interaction of the parts.  Both are necessary, neither is 
sufficient, and with this understanding the whole silly duality issue we can 
just toss on junk heap.  

Moreover, the idea of a composite being, leads also to metaphor of a 
composite material in which the components are fused, changed, combined and 
crystallized in such a way that we have a "composite", while recognizing the 
reality of the components. It also leads us also to reject the idea of a 
dialectic happening over time.  We are what we are, our essence is not one 
which develops (although it may seem that way) it just is.  Existence is a 
function of our compositeness and our compositeness is a function of our 
existence. (One comes close to this linguistically through the colloquial 
phrase equivalence of What is our being? and What is our essence?)

Now following this line, our mortality becomes problematic.  Because the end 
of compositeness means the end of our existence and visa versa.  If one is 
theologically inclined, and the superabundance of creation stories, suggests 
in my view we should be, then this whole being made in the "image" of God 
presents an interesting juxtaposition. (Hence, the updated parable about 
putting lamps under baskets.)  And leads me to the story which leads up to 
the parable of the Good Samaritan in Luke.  That story begins, with maybe a 
smart alec lawyer, who asks:

What must we do for everlasting life? He, correctly, answers his own question 
from the Jewish law, to summarize:

Love God with you whole heart, soul and mind.

_and_

Love your neighbor as self.

The whole subsequent operationalizing of "neighbor", is probably why Jesus 
condemned the lawyers of his time for obscuring the truth.  In this case, 
what probably should have been operationalized was "love".

So once again, we are at the composite nature of our being.  In order have 
existence forever, we must have this composite being which is this 
contemplative life and the active life.  The "everlasting learning" thing and 
this doing "good work well" thing ends up being this idea of love. This is 
why the resurrection of the body is part the Creed, it is a true reflection 
on our compositeness and the composite nature is why Catholics insist on this 
seamless garment idea.

Perhaps, this is too off track for even the DEN.  But having already let on 
about my Georgist tendencies, there seems to be no reason to hide my 
Catholicism, in case anyone forgot. 

I'd go on about Arendt's tracing of how "work" (Arbeit) gets [confused with 
and] separated from "a calling/occupation" (Beruf), but enough esoterica.

JDKromkowski
===========================================================================