My friend Irv Thomas, author of the book Derelict Days, has been living for great swaths of his life on the road, without any traditional "security" at all, on a spiritual journey. The thought fascinates me and scares me.
That sort of life is called "being a bum" by solid citizens. But think about it, is it disdained because it has no value, or because it, if embraced voluntarily by a sane person, gives a freedom which scares them even more than it scares me?
Irv has a journal. Here is a recent issue and a sort of manifesto.
-----
Final Identity commented...
Fabulous plan. My hope has always been to reduce my material things down to something roughly equivalent to three suitcases worth of clothes, and then live "on the lam" without encumbrances. I'd of course have oodles of money to finance my gallivanting, as well.
Two problems tend to arise for me the few times I've been traveling "heavy". The first is a type of social isolation. Though I get to know a lot of fun people, they tend not to be in close personal friendships in which a shared history or viewpoint begins to build a deep bond. I don't find girlfriends, for example, because I either don't stay in one place long enough (or just because I "ain't got game"?) and I can't join sports clubs or choirs. So I find myself with a lot of shallow connections and few deep ones, which gives me a kind of fake satisfaction masking a real loneliness (not to mention the need for sexual / romantic encounters).
The second problem is one of income. I haven't ever been able to "make it work" without a full-time regular job. I don't LIKE full-time regular jobs -- especially since full time always ends up representing 100% of my time, not just my working time -- but I haven't been able to make a decent living in any other way. Again, I "ain't got game" about coaxing people into letting me have a good arrangement. They're not in business (or romance, for that matter) for the opportunity to help me to have a great life. They're in it for their own trade-offs, and often my life is part of the detriment associated with their benefit.
I haven't solved these conundrums. "Doing without" is the only method for dealing with social isolation (and sexual) and with financial needs that I've ever figured out. I'd rather figure out a better one.
Irv Thomas himself said...
In response to Final Identity, it ultimately boils down to what's really going on in your life and how desperate you are to make a radical turnaround.
Sure, I had to learn to live on a lot less money; but in the end, I got much more for my 'little money' than I ever did with a lot more of it. And as far as companionship and romance are concerned: you have no idea how a truly free soul can strike other people. Yes, many turn their noses up; but many more are intrigued and envious enough to make up for the fools. Even at 80, I'm finding new women in my life!
Update: Irv continues:
The desire to get laid is a honey-in-the-pot trap for staying with the old grind, just like money and fame are. With your nose always buried in the pot, however, you really can't see what lies beyond it. And you tend to discount whatever anyone says lies beyond it. But let me tell you a couple of truths I've learned to live by...
I stumbled a lot, at first. But I gradually came to find out that whatever I actually needed just seemed to come to me. And then I gradually saw that what didn't come to me I really didn't need! Eventually, that combination allowed me to put my free time and energy into DOING what I really wanted to be doing, instead of TRYING TO GET what I didn't have. Do you see the difference? One is living, the other is only struggling or yearning or fighting what's real for you. As I said, I always got what I needed, and that certainly included love 'n getting laid. It is still coming fresh to me at 80, and quite as much as I can handle!
There are just illusions that life challenges us to get over. And one of the major ways that this operates is by the honey-in-the-pot. We get hooked on something that is denied to us. Really, the mechanism is that simple. Learn to look twice, and think about, the phenomenon of consistently being denied whatever you're trying to get. It's a challenge, all right . . . but not the kind you've always thought it was.
35 comments:
Fabulous plan. My hope has always been to reduce my material things down to something roughly equivalent to three suitcases worth of clothes, and then live "on the lam" without encumbrances. I'd of course have oodles of money to finance my gallivanting, as well.
Two problems tend to arise for me the few times I've been traveling "heavy". The first is a type of social isolation. Though I get to know a lot of fun people, they tend not to be in close personal friendships in which a shared history or viewpoint begins to build a deep bond. I don't find girlfriends, for example, because I either don't stay in one place long enough (or just because I "ain't got game"?) and I can't join sports clubs or choirs. So I find myself with a lot of shallow connections and few deep ones, which gives me a kind of fake satisfaction masking a real loneliness (not to mention the need for sexual / romantic encounters).
The second problem is one of income. I haven't ever been able to "make it work" without a full-time regular job. I don't LIKE full-time regular jobs -- especially since full time always ends up representing 100% of my time, not just my working time -- but I haven't been able to make a decent living in any other way. Again, I "ain't got game" about coaxing people into letting me have a good arrangement. They're not in business (or romance, for that matter) for the opportunity to help me to have a great life. They're in it for their own trade-offs, and often my life is part of the detriment associated with their benefit.
I haven't solved these conundrums. "Doing without" is the only method for dealing with social isolation (and sexual) and with financial needs that I've ever figured out. I'd rather figure out a better one.
In response to Final Identity, it ultimately boils down to what's really going on in your life and how desperate you are to make a radical turnaround.
Sure, I had to learn to live on a lot less money; but in the end, I got much more for my 'little money' than I ever did with a lot more of it. And as far as companionship and romance are concerned: you have no idea how a truly free soul can strike other people. Yes, many turn their noses up; but many more are intrigued and envious enough to make up for the fools. Even at 80, I'm finding new women in my life!
I'm honored Irv has read my post. I think he'd be surprised to learn, I've given the "on the lam" life a lot of opportunity. What's missing in it for me is consistently the opportunity for ENOUGH income. I've lived off of $5,000.oo (US) a year, for example. So when I'm commenting about getting enough social interaction or enough money, I don't mean to suggest (as he seems to understand) that I'd require something in the middle-class range. I just require something do-able.
Even aside from the money issue (which admittedly is a red herring in this discussion) how do you deal with the social issue? When young attractive women meet me and hear that I can't pay for them to raise children in a suburban house, I don't get laid. Even if they don't intend to immediately try to have children with me and move into a suburban house with me, my CAPACITY to attain those things is what they're judging me by. And yet I want to get laid. Is there something I'm misunderstanding about the arrangement here? I freely admit I've never understood the strangenesses of women, but having even less material things and even less social stability in a given location suggests to me even less access to women.
Your thoughts?
FI, have you ever heard of a woman called Peace Pilgrim? She was a remarkable woman;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mildred_Lisette_Norman
I have no idea whether or not she got laid though.
Hey, Ms. Pilgrim seems interesting enough. But she didn't have much opportunity to read, or to conquer any major intellectual challenges that involve research and attribution of sources, did she? Also I'm wondering about hygiene. And of course, whether or not she got laid. :)
Wow, all this emphasis on getting laid! Yeah, I won't deny that I had it, too (and it still gets to me, now and then); but you know? - some day you should sit down and think it through. The desire to get laid is a honey-in-the-pot trap for staying with the old grind, just like money and fame are. With your nose always buried in the pot, however, you really can't see what lies beyond it. And you tend to discount whatever anyone says lies beyond it. But let me tell you a couple of truths I've learned to live by...
I stumbled a lot, at first. But I gradually came to find out that whatever I actually needed just seemed to come to me. And then I gradually saw that what didn't come to me I really didn't need! Eventually, that combination allowed me to put my free time and energy into DOING what I really wanted to be doing, instead of TRYING TO GET what I didn't have. Do you see the difference? One is living, the other is only struggling or yearning or fighting what's real for you. As I said, I always got what I needed, and that certainly included love 'n getting laid. It is still coming fresh to me at 80, and quite as much as I can handle!
There are just illusions that life challenges us to get over. And one of the major ways that this operates is by the honey-in-the-pot. We get hooked on something that is denied to us. Really, the mechanism is that simple. Learn to look twice, and think about, the phenomenon of consistently being denied whatever you're trying to get. It's a challenge, all right . . . but not the kind you've always thought it was.
I do believe the last couple of references to getting laid were humorous. But still there's no denying that most of us can get very preoccupied with it sometimes.
For me, fortunately less and less.
Anyway, well said, Irv!
To get laid: "Think through" a natural biological desire? I also have a desire to get food. I don't bother trying to make it go away by thinking it through. All my life, people with more money than me have tried to tell me to want less money, people with more sex than me have tried to tell me to want less sex, people with more opportunity than me have tried to tell me that I'm well off enough already. Seems to me like they're trying to keep the good stuff for themselves by precluding a little competition.
But yes, the references to getting laid were meant to be humorous. The part about reading, on the other hand ... that part most of y'all ignored? It was important to me.
I don't see why one can't read on the road. Just visit libraries or buy a couple of paperbacks at a time, and sell them in used-book shops.
But I think for many this kind of journey is not one you go on if you feel the need to make a journey in books.
Obviously you don't drive much ...
Well, both Irv and Peace Pilgrim did not drive either.
It's easy enough to talk yourself out of trying something that scares you.
It's also easy enough to cut down strangers on the internet without finding anything out about their real life circumstances.
But wasn't it those "real life circumstances" you specifically wanted to alter?
I believe one can not state the solution in much more clearer language than what Irv has done above. I quote:
"... put my ... time and energy into DOING what I really wanted to be doing, instead of TRYING TO GET what I didn't have. Do you see the difference? One is living, the other is only struggling or yearning or fighting what's real for you."
More holier-than-thou generalizations. Is there a plan of action?
Here's an example of the weakness of the suggestion. What if, say, I want to be "doing" a lot of sex with beautiful women? (I know, it's a silly example, but it serves its purpose.) So, what do I do? Just ... go out and "do" it on my own? No, of course not; it requires the approval of other humans. In the absence of that approval, one is not free to "do" it.
Here. Let's try another example. What if the thing I really want to "do" is play in the Cup Final for Tottenham and score the goal that beats Arsenal 1 - 0 in the eighty-sixth minute? So, I just go "do" that, do I? But in my experience, even playing large amounts of soccer as a child, to a very high level, and enjoying every minute of it, didn't actually make the continuing "doing" of it plausible. Requires other circumstances -- good coaches, a professional league in the USA while I'm a youth, other things like that. Things I had no control over.
OK, another. What if the thing I really want to be involved in the "do" aspect of, is hiking the globe? (Probably an example more in the spirit of the original intention.) Shall I just go "do" it? What happens when I run out of food? In fact, I've already done some of that. I rode my bike around Lake Ontario, starting in Toronto (at the time my home). When I got to Buffalo I ran out of money. I kept going anyway. Got to Rochester. Had to call mom and dad for emergency funds. Not gonna do that again, the whole "sponge off relatives or the kindness of strangers" thing is the definition of irresponsible. If you want to "do" hiking (or riding) you have to FUND IT YOURSELF, otherwise it's just a pampered trip to a resort island paid for by someone other than yourself. But I currently lack the funds. So, if I WANT to "do" the vagabond, then I would FIRST have to "have" the money.
The suggestion is moot. It's a quaint intellectual exercise, it makes a valid spiritual point, but it's not literally a recipe for behavior. Just as with much of the Christian Bible, or the Muslim Koran, or Thoreau's "Simplify, simplify," I strive to practice many of the valid tenets secreted there-in, but I'm not so literal-minded as to pretend that each and every precept can be literally followed.
So, when I initially offered my (rather flip, perhaps poorly expressed?) misgivings about not being able to get laid, or get money, I didn't JUST mean them as a dismissive "yes but I can't do that" type of objection. They DO serve that purpose. But more, they serve a rather deeper purpose. Few of us are materially free. And just "willing" material freedom isn't going to happen. I've lived twenty years, roughly, since my parents stopped supporting me through my college degree, and I've had varied levels of material support thanks to my varied levels of commitment to the workplace. I am now not so callow as to believe that "wishing" will make the need for food or shelter go away. I tried all that other stuff. Almost died, offended a lot of family, WASTED MY INTELLECTUAL POTENTIAL because I was so busy striving for bare minimum sustenance that my education and mental capacities were wasted.
It's a sin to wait tables if you're unhappy at it because it lacks mental challenge, AND you're capable of something more challenging, AND you're interested in doing something more challenging, AND you are sponging off relatives in order to fund your grand slumming self-indulgence. It's not a sin, if you support yourself.
I advocate supporting yourself. I also agree with "Simplify, simplify," and "Man cannot live by bread alone," but those are metaphorical concepts. Now get offa my case. I get your point, you're preaching to the choir, and you're acting rather holier-than-thou about the whole material quest. Yes, I'd LOVE for my material wants to be provided "magically" by someone else so that I'd be free to pursue more spiritual ones, like advocating for the downtrodden or solo hiking up Mount Rainier. Can't afford it, not certified to do it, not informed enough to do a good job at it. Nor are you. Gotta get the law degree first. Tired of going hungry. Tired of not getting a date because I wouldn't be able to support a family. Tired of being lonely. Tired of having to take more of mom and dad's retirement money just to barely cover rent and bus fare to my job. Tired of a job that's a real let-down because it's nothing but drone work, the co-workers lack aspirations, the superiors are uneducated and insecure and therefore randomly lash out at those who have intellectual skills (such as me!), the situation is unhealthy, the pay is negligible. I deserve a decent existence. I know how to "do without" and frankly, I'm in the middle of doing it. I'm REALLY tired of the middle class pseudo-intellectuals telling the lower class that we ought to do without material well-being, and making those statements from materially better circumstances than those of the people they're talking to.
How many times in my life has a person richer than me told me that money won't make me happier? How often has a guy dating two or three attractive, friendly young women said that I shouldn't try to date similar people? I don't buy it. Sure, those tasks are not the GOAL in and of themselves, and they may not actually create total happiness. (I seriously doubt they will.) But failing to fulfill them is, in itself, part of what is causing me unhappiness. Absence of viable dating partners BECAUSE OF and LINKED TO my material failures, leads to further unhappiness. I'm sorry that women are shallow about money and career, and I certainly don't intend to just get a girl on the basis of her gold-digging and my high salary. But I have a right to spending a life in the company of friendly other humans, don't I? And there we are, someone with plenty of friends telling me that I shouldn't want friends.
To hell with that shit. If you got it and you're happy, and I ain't got it and I ain't happy, I'ma gonna make a rational connection or two, ain't I?
People who tell me that I'm somehow in the wrong for wanting to succeed are just busy trying to convince THEMSELVES that their chosen distance from traditional career is appropriate. Sometimes it is, but if you're so worried about your own lack of vigor in chasing accomplishment and a valid, fulfilling existence, nevertheless please don't take it out on me. I've got my own choices to make. They aren't extremely materialistic at all. In fact, relative to other people on this blog, I'm likely one of the most poor, and I'm sure I'm one of the least intellectually fulfilled. Books and thoughts and jobs that require the two, also require MATERIAL LEVELS OF SUCCESS.
Sorry folks, the holier-than-thou is transparent. You're really just trying to convince yourselves that you're better than the material level at which you've found, much to your own horror, you require yourself to be.
I'm not desperate for money. I do vagabond often. But I also know enough to recognize that a life of odd jobs and menial labor, striving always for the bare minimum to pay for food, is desperate, unfulfilling, and a waste of my talents. Maybe your talents are that limited. Mine aren't. I was born with a brain and a desire to use it. And it's not getting used, largely because I lived a younger life full of disdain for material success. Now I see more clearly the link between going ahead with a "career" plan, and getting to where I can accomplish certain mental intellectual acts. Like advocating for the needy here in New Orleans. Like affording on my own to get to Mount Rainier rather than snitching from mom and dad's retirement fund in order to get there.
Final,
Point well taken. But I honestly don't think that Irv has acted holier-than-thou.
Jeez, Final, I didn't mean to rile you up that much. Tried to answer your concerns as clearly as I could, and certainly never intended to be critical. I can only convey my own reality, and it does seem like you are arguing with yourself more than with me.
Which could very well be the case, as you are at a midlife area which has a long history of being a major turning point for people. As it was for me! All I can say is to hang in with the self-questioning . . . maybe you're going somewhere with it.
Do try and make that distinction, though, between pursuing your own inner inclinations and not merely what you see that you're not getting enough of. I really insist that by BEING yourself the rest will come in its own time. I hope you work it through.
The only reason I'm arguing is, that I'm being taken to task. Extremely patronizingly:
"it does seem like you are arguing with yourself more than with me.
Which could very well be the case, as you are at a midlife area which has a long history of being a major turning point for people. As it was for me! All I can say is to hang in with the self-questioning . . . maybe you're going somewhere with it.
... I really insist that by BEING yourself the rest will come in its own time. I hope you work it through."
Here's a rude parallel to what you've just done to me: I too hope you grow and change for the better, because (as you've implied about me, but haven't had the courage to express directly) you aren't worthy right now. You do need to change, improve, and work through your problems. I hope you can somehow conquer that difficult challenge, though it is of course quite natural that at this stage in your life you'd be patronizing and holier-than-others from your difficult position.
I don't actually believe that position. But your statements come from the position of assumed superiority. There's no questioning going on, and in the rare instance where you allow self-scrutiny you cast it as though you've somehow discovered the concept and therefore get to take credit for it. "Self-questioning" isn't your own invention, please don't do me the disservice of presenting it as though I need to learn it from you.
In general, it's not the advice I object to; it's the presumption that I and other hungry people NEED ADVICE from the well-off. If you've got money and I need money, DON'T TELL ME I DON'T NEED MONEY. Instead, either GIVE ME YOURS (thus proving that you really don't value it) or SHUT UP and let me get on with my life.
I don't object to the initial suggestions. In fact, this exchange began with me treating them as though they were noble but largely un-implementable. I merely need dinner. Those of you lucky enough to live in developed Western nations that have manged, safe parklands, are lucky enough to bask in the sunlight there. Those of you who haven't been within 100 miles of a handgun or a serial murderer let free because the system can't get around to arraigning him, are privileged to blather about how the government ought to reduce the restrictions on all citizens without worrying that maybe ... letting murderers go loose is a PROBLEM with overly lax governments. Those of you who have lived fulfilling lives that challenge you intellectually AND pay the bills are LUCKY. Don't tell me I'm going about my life wrong just because my country doesn't pay me to be intellectually challenged the way yours did you that favor.
I got $4,900.oo US a year to work 80 hours a week as a teacher. It was valuable work. I went hungry. I was fired when I was caught scrounging dinner from the school cafeteria's dumpster. I was supposed to "do it for the love" (man cannot live on love alone, I wanted to explain). I then got ZERO or even NEGATIVE for working as a highly successful academic. I was supposed to feel that my position as a researcher was a PRIVILEGE and that I shouldn't complain because SO MANY OTHER PEOPLE (all of whom had wealthy families to bankroll them) would instantly snap up that job. I lost it because I "lacked dedication" (I had to work as a bar-back and a waiter at a men's gay cabaret to pay for rent, so I couldn't commit 100% of my time to the research). I wanted to ride my bike around the Great Lakes but, in order to train for this ride, I would have had to OWN A NICER BIKE and be able to AFFORD FANCY ATHLETIC SUPPLEMENTS and gym membership and the lot. Couldn't do it.
My performance is hampered by the fact that I can't afford to enter into high-performance fields. Intellectually, I am limited by the fact that I have to wait tables. This means that people who value intellectuality less than me also get the opportunity to do it more, and therefore can attain higher levels of both competitiveness (if indeed it is a competition; which all job placements are ...) and of fulfillment. My book-reading is limited BECAUSE I'M WAITING TABLES. And then, I'm considered "less devoted" because I had to wait tables.
There's a class system out there. Those of you who suggest that I might do well to "do without" are simply saying, "Eat cake." You CAN do without as much as you already have, BECAUSE YOU HAVE MORE THAN ENOUGH.
I'm hungry. I want to win enough that I'll have a CHANCE at freedom. Freedom isn't something I can just "will" into existence in my life. My time is taken UP ENTIRELY, when I'm trying to support myself, with trying to support myself. I'd be glad to hear what bank you robbed, that didn't come hunting you down with security guards and police forces, to fund your gallivanting. As it stands, I'm pretty sure that 99% of the people who recommend that we working stiffs should work less, probably haven't ever had to work very hard because of their own life circumstances.
I bust my butt. Stop implying I need to learn something about priorities in life from someone who never had to. If you're free to be lazy, great for you. I wish I were. I want friends, love, time to have sex, beauty in my life (I bring these things up because the Domai administrator is involved in this blog, so it seems rather central); I also want intellectual fulfillment, a chance to learn foreign languages, the right to advocate for the poor, the knowledge of how to do it effectively. I want food every day. I want a clean bed to sleep in. I want dignity.
I don't have much of any of the preceding right now. It doesn't seem very appropriate that people who have their own home would suggest that the homeless learn to do without. It doesn't seem very appropriate that the lawyers and website administrators of the world, all making a comfortable middle class income, should suggest to the struggling waiters and gay cabaret dancers that we should learn to do without the amenities you take for granted. It doesn't seem very sensible, at all, that someone who hasn't EVER had the RIGHT to work in a mentally fulfilling discipline is told by people who get books for free and take entire summers off, that we should learn to devote ourselves more stringently.
Those in charge and in power regularly tell the underlings, "Just do without." That's what you're doing.
final identity said:
"What if, say, I want to be "doing" a lot of sex with beautiful women?"
You don't need to worry too much about that happening.
Face it, you're just too shit scared to try it. You're just a frightened little boy.
Your attempts at reason are laughable. You are obviously not all that bright, and when someone calls you on something you react like the little boy you are. You react, actually, more like a cornered animal. Attempting and failing to understand, you react with anger born of fear.
You are a fool. You understand nothing.
"How many times in my life has a person richer than me told me that money won't make me happier?"
"Money doesn't buy happiness. But it sure makes misery a lot easier to endure." (Author forgotten)
I've been told several times by my dedicated troll: "You really expect people to read you?" after a sizeable post. Well, people, yes. Fools, no. I read you, Final, and oddly I fully get your point.
To me, you're basically a name and face on what I've long known about the shortcomings of the "American Miracle". There are millions in such a situation, and now I know one of them personally.
I wish I could give you a simple solution. Or just a realistic one. Clearly, like Terry, you're the opposite of a slacker, a valliant worker who still can't rise on the crooked and greased social ladder.
The best I can think of, is advise (yes, I apologize) that you keep both eyes open for opportunities that might cross your path. Just by your articulate writing, it's clear the intellectual potential you talk about is genuine. And that the System is absurdly squandering it. Try to expand your connections network (being on this blog is a good step), to increase the likelihood of meeting someone who can see your worth and offer you a break to make a living and simultaneously be useful to others.
I don't know much about the power of wishing. (What little I know isn't very encouraging.) But I know about the power of trying.
For instance, I'm sure there have to be women around you of, say, the same socio-economic level?, that would consider befriending you "and more", without seeing you as a walking piggy-bank with too few coins inside. There's got to be some, they're not all movie illusions.
I wish you optimism and some well-deserved lucky break, man. You never know what surprise Destiny might have in store for you, provided you don't give up.
Sure, you've got character, and I see you vent off. I can also see, even in the middle of a rant, a person I'd like to know directly. Alas for you, I'm not a woman in your area. Yet I'm am convinced I'm not some extraordinary and unique fluke, or an exceptional individual. Definitely not. You're bound to meet a nice woman with just as much of an open mind.
This might be just a silly idea, but since you're undoubtedly cultivated, why not seek a job in a library or book shop? Or with an editor? Something closely related to books. It's a good place to meet other people with a brain, and maybe encounter opportunities for a better career.
A system that imprisons people into working their butt off just to barely survive? Not to brag, but I know the feeling. I live in "obscenely prosperous" Lebanon. So far, all the bosses I know of are insecure stingy slave-drivers. So I really don't think you're being delusional there.
Not to brag again, but I've lived the situation of working 100 hours a week, plus transportation time, for $300 a month. Even over here, that's very little. And we were also told we should be thankful "for the privilege". Luckily, I still lived with my parents, so I never went hungry.
Say, is your boss from lebanese origin? ;-)
Cultural side note: Queen Marie-Antoinette NEVER truly said "let them eat cake". It was one of the many, many slander rumors spread by those who envied her position and manipulated the public opinion. Rich bastards lying to the poor in order to use them. The relentless libel campaign lasted for decades. The fact that the King was inept as a ruler didn't help either...
The plan backfired when the Revolution abolished royalty, eventually for good.
P.S.: ignore the anonymous provocations. They're just proof that some petty people are sadder than you'll ever be and trying to drag you down to their mental level.
Looks like the troll has already given up on rattling Joe Dick. Now it's Final Identity's turn.
I wonder who'll have the "honors" next? :-P
I recommend the book The Trick To Money Is Having Some.
When I read that book the first time, I was totally broke, out of work, and deeply in debt. Now I'm the opposite. I can't evaluate exactly how much the book helped, but it did help a lot.
Sigh. This thread must have the weirdest combination of brilliant thinking (Irv) and the most pathetic whining (F.I.) I've seen in a long time, if ever.
For once I have to agree 100% with anonymous. F.I, until you reassess your attitude you have very little chances for a better life. (Let alone sexual relationships.)
You write almost as if it was other people's fault that you are not earning as much as you "deserve" or don't have an intellectually stimulating job. Hence this post, as an answer on behalf of humanity: Sorry, not our fault.
For reality doesn't work that way. It's the opposite: You alone are responsible.
You have offered countless direct and implied excuses for not currently having what you want. But we hear nothing of what you are actually DOING---as in right now---to get those things. No need to respond. I know without a shadow of a doubt that you are doing absolutely nothing. How? From your attitude. Deep down you know it is you that sucks. But coming to realise this hurts, so it pays to try to project the reason outside just in case this would somehow make it so. It doesn't of course.
"But your statements come from the position of assumed superiority."
No. Your statements come from assumed victimhood.
"But I currently lack the funds."
Me too. But it doesn't prevent me from doing all kinds of stuff I want to do. And most importantly, it doesn't prevent me from working towards my goal of getting those funds.
"I was born with a brain and a desire to use it. And it's not getting used, largely because I lived a younger life full of disdain for material success."
Are you in fact a troll? Or what could possibly be the motivation for writing this kind of nonsense? I know people who have a fraction of the resources you have (some are permanently disabled, some never had a home to begin with), but never complain and steadily produce stellar stuff even when jobless, or outside their day job (sometimes outside two day jobs).
I personally don't like to use the word "loser", but it fits you perfectly. For I define loser as someone who argues from the position of why he can't help but lose, i.e. why he is "set up" to lose by his circumstances. This kind of attitude effectively makes losing the goal, justifying title "loser".
Final Identity, you suck real bad. I hope you stop sucking and instead start DOING.
You load sixteen tons, what do you get?
Another day older and deeper in debt
Saint Peter don't you call me 'cause I can't go
I owe my soul to the company store
Pascal said:
Queen Marie-Antoinette NEVER truly said "let them eat cake". It was one of the many, many slander rumors spread by those who envied her position and manipulated the public opinion.
A book you might find interesting: The Book of General Ignorance, by John Mitchinson and John Lloyd (with a forward by Stephen Fry). It deals with a lot of things we think we know, like the "let them eat cake" line.
Nice comments, Pascal. I'm sure we'd get along in real life. Thanks for not being an idiotically knee-jerk reactionary to posts that didn't actually merit it. Eolake, I'll look into that book. I have so many like it.
Others have missed my point. I'm pretty clear that I don't object to the initial suggestions (in fact, I think I'm clearest on it where I say, "I don't object to the initial suggestions," har). I WANT to live a vagabonding life. I'm not some materialist out here saying I want moolah-moolah more more more. I'm actually addressing (or trying to) the specific difficulties of implementing that kind of lifestyle.
What gets me is the patronizing attitude: "Oh, you lucky little poor person. I have thousands of dollars and I expect you to understand how miserable I am, such that you should never wish to have money." This I hear regularly in American society, but frankly I don't trust it. (And you can extend money metaphorically to a number of other items.)
Sure, I have frustrations. Especially at the patronizing attitude of advice like the above.
A more productive direction to investigate, other than addressing someone's character (which almost all respondents have done to me, and I have done to none), would be to figure out how to overcome some of the major problems that folks tend to experience when attempting to live a "vagabonding" lifestyle. As I initially described, my experience has led to social isolation and to insufficient income, to the point that I had to abandon vagabonding in order to earn money for food. So far this thread has suggested things which come down to "get a better attitude" and "grow up."
By the way, how many of you holier-than-thou types who excoriate my character and happily tell me how I need to suck it up and try harder, how many of you, exactly, actually HAVE given up on material possessions and lived a life devoid of the middle class trappings of success? How many have lived under a bridge for a night or two? Begged for food? Eaten at the kindness of strangers at truck stops? Worked as exotic dancers for barter for a place to sleep? Sold off your books and been kicked out of the library because of uncleanness? Quit your musical groups because you couldn't afford the fees for artistic self-expression? Skipped visiting family for the holidays because you had exposure sores on your face and hands and you didn't want your mom to worry? Hmm?
Get off my case. You haven't been there. I'm hungry.
H
U
N
G
R
Y
If you're telling me I don't know how to prioritize, and all I really need to do is somehow magically "zen" myself into a more productive state of mind and it will "all fall together better," you're talking to the wrong person. I'll take your job. Are you offering to give it up? No? Then you aren't taking your own advice. At some point, it's a crime and a sin to have your mind squashed by the mind-numbing monotony of walking fifty miles to get a bite to eat. At some point, it's a crime and a sin to lose your mental capacities because you haven't had sufficient protein in six or eight weeks.
That's America. We do it to thousands daily. Children suffer worse than the rest, they're not only trying to be themselves amid this type of prevention and onslaught, they're trying to GROW INTO being someone worthwhile. Were y'all gonna say that all the kids really needed to do was try harder, be more zen, grow up a little, just realize that material things don't matter? Sure, material things like bread ("brioche"?) don't matter, as long as you HAVE ENOUGH OF THEM.
I'm surprised at the patronization I've received in this thread. People miss my point entirely, so well-ensconced in swaddled material success are they. The poor are out there, folks. And their poverty isn't their fault. It happens to the best of us. It will happen to you. I hope you remember how you treated my points when it does.
Thanks for the tip, Joe. I only found out about the "cake" line from a recent documentary on Marie-Antoinette's life. So the book sounds greatly useful for a would-be cultivated mind such as I.
I'm sure too, Final. Apart from my brothers and the average mass-murderer psycho, I can get along with most people. :-)
It's just that I have this pet peeve related to human rights: I don't like to see them trampled.
As my hippie-type friend Baloo likes to say (and even sing), "you need only the bear necessities". I think this is the whole point of this discussion, and that everybody seems to agree with it. Where I differ from the rest, is that I know the "bear necessities" aren't that obvious when you're a man-cub in the asphalt jungle. Not when the deck is stacked against you by the... "casino".
I've seen what poverty can be like. Only as a spectator; lucky for me, in spite of all the civil war's hardships I've never known real need myself. But... well, I'm just lousy at sitting on my empathy, or perhaps at reining my imagination, because I always picture myself in the shoes of others. (When they do have shoes!) I feel a very deep kinship with Victor Hugo for that reason, that guy was really something else.
In this very moment, people in Burma are getting shot in the streets. Are they demanding scraps of political freedom? Not even. They're just hungry and getting desperate. The junta hasn't grasped this yet: this time they're not going to be intimidated by the prospect of getting killed. History is in motion.
The monks are leading the movement, after being its initial spark. Naturally, they feel with the people. But, not to belittle their sense of solidarity, there's also a very pragmatic fact: the monks live from the donations of the people. If the people simply DON'T have enough to eat themselves, then the monks don't either. So all those folks have everything to gain and practically nothing to lose.
This is why as soon as I heard about it, I've blogged that it's not gonna stop, not this time. There's also my intuition, very reliable when it "sees" something. It's SO fortunate that nobody decided to boycott the Beijing Olympics. Yet.
Now China has a face to save in this matter. Vely vely impoltant, my fliends. Malk my wolds.
I recall a thing to ponder. You know Mensa, the association of the world's highest IQs? Well, its members are of all kinds, from millionaires to homeless people. I need no further proof that brains do not ensure social sucess.
And there's also the George W. Bush reverse example! :-P
I think I understand where TTL's position comes from. Not really a holier-than-thou judgemental attitude, just his own paradigms of the world, and a wide gap between respective views. I understand, TTL, and I have a high opinion of your intellect, yet this time I beg to differ. Sometimes a different outlook is enough to change things. And sometimes they can only be changed by a revolution.
Remember that Final has some valid reasons to be touchy. I can get touchy too, when the neighborhood's troll brays that after growing up in Lebanon and seeing children die I have no sense of human suffering. We all have our weaknesses when very personal matters are involved.
I challenge anybody here to remain smiling when hearing obscene insults about their mother, even though we know darn well there's not a shadow of truth to it. We're human, some things just get to us.
Fortunately, we're also civilized company (with one lurker exception), so we can disagree without "going to the mattresses".
For those who don't know the expression, "going to the mattresses" is when mafia members use their minimal-comfort safehouses during a vendetta gang war, see? Yeah.
Pascal said:
You know Mensa, the association of the world's highest IQs?
Mensa is actually supposed to be one of the easier high-IQ societies to get into. There are other societies, like the Giga Society, which require a much higher score - although I don't know what tests any of these societies use.
Some of the ones with the higher requirements, taking a smaller percentage of the population, expose some of the inadequacies of the IQ test - they have more members than they should have given the current population of the world, and the fact that not every single person has been tested.
It's interesting that people who score very high (like Asimov - IQ 165) are the ones who talk about how an IQ score is essentially meaningless.
Pascal, I'd also recommend Schott's Original Miscellany by Ben Schott, also endorsed by Stephen Fry. :-) It's pretty interesting too, and a good little quick reference for a lot of mostly useless facts.
I think I should proof read these posts before they're set in stone - I really used the word "society" a lot in that last one!
Yes, a reference book for mostly useless facts sounds very interesting. ;-)
"The Giga Society"? What, they only take people with an IQ of one billion and above? Or is it just a name?
[Giga = 10^9]
The IQ score is, essentially, a tool to help detect mental handicap in general screening tests. People who mistake it for a reliable and complete intelligence reference are seldom in the highest IQ scores.
To be honest, it's not yet fully known what "intelligence" IS. It's extremely relative, depending on circumstances. Einstein was catastrophic as a family man. My grandmother is illiterate but a very perceptive person (to a surprising degree sometimes), there's just no fooling her. A one-year-old child might beat an adult at some intellectual challenges like observation and memorization. Because learning as a child actually requires some unique brain capacities, if you think about it. A good soldier on the field is a smart soldier... in the domain of tactical warfare. A successful politician is not an honest one alas, but the charismatic psychologist. There are many areas of intelligence. It's possible to excell in one or more of these areas, but nobody can be all-smart, in everything at once.
Except, of course, those whose intelligence is located in their bottom. A smart-ass will "always be right". Just ask him. ;-)
Pascal said:
"People who mistake it for a reliable and complete intelligence reference are seldom in the highest IQ scores."
Of course, a person can only really slam it if they've scored high. Otherwise it will seem like sour grapes. Ron Jeremy is comfortable saying that size doesn't matter. :-)
"Ron Jeremy is comfortable saying that size doesn't matter."
Heh, I'm going to have to use that next time I need to point out that the rich are the ones telling me I don't want money. Marie Antoinette ...
And about IQ in specific, I'm finding that it CAN BE CHANGED. I'm practicing taking the LSAT, because on December 1 I'll take it for real. My initial performance was high (90th -percentile-ish) but I want higher (because of how the index compares to law school admissions, etc.) and I'm finding it IS possible to learn mental skills that you didn't have before. You don't JUST "get familiar with the test" (though that is, of course, a major portion of the training); you ALSO "make new connections." And not just of the familiar kind.
This sort of thing should be taught to children in their formative stages. I suspect that it WAS taught to me when I was growing up, such that I ended up learning to learn in a better manner than many. I feel very lucky for that. But it isn't just that I'm learning to learn, or that I'm learning to learn to learn, it's that I'm BUILDING THE MUSCLE which learns to learn. Does that make sense? It's not just bicep curls, or even steroids for the bicep curls; it's new arms.
The idea of neuroplasticity. They even have workouts that are supposed to help the aged brain, but which could no doubt help a lot more people make the most of what they've got:
http://www.positscience.com/
You can't manufacture genius, but you can at least make the most of what you were given.
As a "man of the art", I'll have to second that. I've already made many detailed mentions of neuroplasticity (without naming it) that use up their fair share of the this blog's archives memory.
So (ta-daaah!) I'm not going to say it all AGAIN. Yeah, I know, I know, don't thank me. I too can learn. :-)
I'd like to know where in "these United States" someone could make less than 5 G's as a teacher. Teachers are known to make shit money, but surely not that little? Well, I don't really expect Final Identity to answer as he seems to have deserted this blog in the three years since this post. I just kind of skimmed the entries here, but that caught my eye.
Post a Comment