Uphill at-stakers vs. downhill at-stakers

There is the concept of at-stakeness.  A synonym to this is to be invested in something.  To have an interest – more than just an interest in something, for an interest can be arbitrary.  At-stakeness implies a kind of inextricable integration into something.

In thinking about this, and thinking about how the concept of at-stakeness is utilized in discussions related to individuals and society I’m becoming aware that there are actually two kinds of at-stakeness: uphill at-stakeness and downhill at-stakeness.

One can have a stake in something for different reasons.  One reason may be downhill – things that can happen by default, that do not involve any sort of personal sacrifice, deprivation, or discomfort.  Downhill involvements that lead to at-stakeness will just happen and suddenly a person will be in an at-stake situation merely because they’re following a course that doesn’t require any particular effort nor achievement.  An example of downhill at-stakeness is having a family.

Then there is uphill at-stakeness.  Uphill at-stakeness occurs when there is effort and achievement.  It occurs as a result of an investment which may require sacrifice, deprivation, or discomfort.  It’s something to work for.  These things do not just happen by default.  They are not part of a normal course.  To find oneself in a situation of uphill at-stakeness is the result of effort and concentration.  Examples of uphill at-stakeness are studying to be a physician or studying to be a classical musician.

I think there’s a difference between these two types of at-stakeness.  At-stakeness makes one aware or makes one attentive to what formerly was not a subject for awareness or attention.  It is a creating or a heightening of concern.  Uphill at-stakers are the ones who drive civilization.  Downhill at-stakers help to maintain it, but they do not drive it forward.  The fact that we have medicine, computers, airplanes, symphonies…  – is because of uphill at-stakers.

There’s a lot more I would like to write about this but for now I’m going to leave it at this.  Basically where this leads to is that at-stakeness is a massive concept that has huge significance for society, especially a society with a continually decreasing lowest-common-denominator (LCD), a society which operates on the principle of the LCD.

In such a sick society it can easily be claimed that “rights” are being provided because the majority of people do not have any stake in grounds for brahmanic cultivation.  And most of those who do have a stake are downhill at-stakers, not uphill at-stakers.

If you want to know how fucked up a society is you look at the uphill at-stakers, not downhill at-stakers and the LCDers.  How well uphill at-stakers are doing is a true measure of how healthy a society is.  And of course all one sees over and over are lying politicians talking about the rights and interests of LCDers and downhill at-stakers.

When being an uphill at-staker means being part of a privileged, entitled class then a society is damaged and dying.  Any society that does not protect and treasure it’s uphill at-stakers but exposes them to abuse and undermines them is a dying society.

Lying politicians will proclaim the triumph of the “rights” for the LCDers while they kill society.