Hrm, interesting:
Originally posted by Nesster Re Pentaxians ruing planned obsolescence - Many of us choose Pentax for its backward compatibility. That is the one link we have to some permanence of our stuff. Very un-Buddhist too, to become attached to old Takumars and SMC-M's, no?
No. Actually. Illusions of 'permanence' do not make distractions about the latest-and-most-ephemeral thing *better if they suck.*
One doesn't have to 'prove nonattachment' by insisting on shooting Holga, in some pretentious way of 'Only crap is good cause I say some absolute about how purist I am about shooting with crap, ,' or otherwise insisting on pretense of 'I don't care.'
Especially not when making things.
There's a dance, there, and that doesn't mean one insists on impermanence by consumer standards, it means, (to use more Pagan than Buddhist terms) there's a dance. One does not dance, however fleetingly, as though it must be thrown away, because only perfection would do, one dances as though every moment were a forever.
A good chisel should last generations. An old chisel may or may not be kept up well, but if it was made right in the first place, it can be made so.
Basically, moralizing about 'nonattachment' etc is a 'vice' of monotheistic Westerners, Buddhisty or not.
Especially in Japan, the idea is not that 'Perfection sucks' it's in a term I can't remember: you make the most perfect thing you can in everything you do and the flaw becomes the anchor of beauty.
Good old tools can be like that. Crappy tools may have been crappy from day one. You don't moralize about what's 'impermanent,' you put things in perspective, and you do well at making and using, directly.
In an impermanent world, by certain ideals, it's not worth doing anything slipshod or unseaworthy. Excuses tend to take more effort than doing it right the first time. Cutting corners for profit just pushes the results off on someone else, usually for the value of novelty.
In between, a lot of stuff ain't as precise as it should be while people argue about labels when some things we accept as normal now, a generation ago, we *just wouldn't pay the period equivalent of a grand for, full-stop, sorry, there.*
Quote: And, isn't it a male trait to try to hold onto favorite (comfortable) clothes and shoes well past their prime?
Says who, and what things? By whose standards?
Some things aren't *meant* to last indefinitely or generationally.
Some things will be non-biodegradeable junk long after planned obsolecence frustrated you.
Basically, impermanence needs *no* help from any lowered standards in human endeavor.
Quote: There is an emotional dimension to
stuff that the rapid price point MTF thing doesn't support - instead I suppose is an appeal to our discoverer-hunter genes, where we can proudly be the first ones on the forum with the latest Pentax gizmo
You've lost me in some ways, here, at least trying to make gender-essentialist claims which would seem to be contradictory before we even get into saying it's somehow un-non-dualist to not be ..... Dismissive of good old glass?
Sometimes an old Tak may not smell so good, at first, but it's nothing compared to your sneakers.
---
Quote: What Gene says is very true - large corporations become very government like internally. People naturally focus on what's currently most important - quarterly for corporations, biannually for congress
Once past a certain size, corporations are run more and more on a spreadsheet basis - the person three levels up barely knows you, and knows almost nothing about those who work for you. The Customer is appealed to, but these appeals tend to be for in-fighting over budgets and project priorities...
Well, corporations want to be governments, yes, don't let them take over Buddhism like they have certain other faiths.
'Nonattachment means: Buy more Crap!' is not where you want to see Buddhism go, and they already blew it with the Pagans.