TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Chill Out Room
-- Which would you rather? Financial wealth or social wealth?
Pages (5): « 1 2 [3] 4 5 »

quote:

Originally posted by fayraree im shocked at how many hippies there are in the COR.

don't forget fags

there are many fags in c0r

quote:

Originally posted by Akridrot Are you kidding me? I know people who have 'friends' in the thousands and only talk to about 5 people MAX. It's so fucking stupid, I swear. These aren't social networking sites, these are basically "Please add me to your friends because you go to the same college as me and maybe I've seen you once or twice, or maybe we have a mutual friend. Anyway, just approve my request and we will never speak to each other again. Isn't this cool!?" sites.

Well put. I don't do Myspace but on Facebook I've only added people who I'd go down to the bar, or a pub for a drink with.

Some people I know seem to have turned it into a competition to see who can have the most friends The irony is it usually goes the other way. Those I know with 800+ friends are those who were the loners when I knew them and probably add people they meet on the bus.

quote:

Originally posted by fbgdavidson Some people I know seem to have turned it into a competition to see who can have the most friends The irony is it usually goes the other way. Those I know with 800+ friends are those who were the loners when I knew them and probably add people they meet on the bus.

I only add people I hang out with in some form or fashion and know more than "Hey, I am Ben, who are you?" types. Even TAs that I am down near but have never met, I don't add for the most part. There are a select few, but most I do not. I prefer to add people I actually know. I usually stick to this. I had someone try to add me on facebook who I didn't know. I straight up asked, "do I know you? Have I met you somewhere?" I really hate to have people on my list that I don't know.

Also, as mentioned, the US has conditioned a lot of people (not just the US peeps) that a "friend" is someone you know, where as in most cultures, a friend is someone that would give you the shirt off their back if necessary. I have attempted to change my usage but it is quite hard when you have done it your whole life.

quote:

Originally posted by gehzumteufel Also, as mentioned, the US has conditioned a lot of people (not just the US peeps) that a "friend" is someone you know, where as in most cultures, a friend is someone that would give you the shirt off their back if necessary. I have attempted to change my usage but it is quite hard when you have done it your whole life.

Quite, when I said I'd never add someone I wouldn't be happy to have a drink with it was implied that I had met them at some point. I guess that's because I'm British so as you say, a friend is not the same as an acquaintance.

So my criteria:
-Have I met you?
-Would I have a drink with you?
Yes, to both gets you added. I'm sure nobody gives a shit

Like you I've had some people from other online communities where I am more active request me and I've just turned them down, or left them in the purgatory where they are neither denied nor accepted.

Akridrot:

A consumption-oriented economy thrives on social isolation and insensitivity to "intellectual goods."

People who derive most of their happiness from hanging out with their friends and family, or from inexpensive hobbies like reading or art, feel little need for big ticket items. They get their emotional satisfaction in less tangible ways. If you borrow DVDs and CDs and books from your friends rather than buying them, you are worth far less to the corporations who manufacture those things. If lots of people live contentedly in the same home, that means fewer washing machines, televisions, ovens, computers, and vacuum cleaners will be sold, since those things can easily be shared by people who live under the same roof -- not to mention that fewer houses will be built in the first place.

So the mantra of "independence" is trumpeted, idealizing the pleasure and "freedom" of possessing one's very own [insert expensive item here]. Never mind the dependence on creditors and employers that frequently results when people take such a mantra seriously.

Encourage domestic discontent, encourage a rift between generations that makes living under the same roof intolerable, and you suddenly create a "need" for thousands of more products and funnel lots of money to the industries that manufacture them and the other industries that gather the necessary raw materials. Thousands of new houses must be built, thousands of new appliances made, and thousands of jobs are created to throw the economic giant into motion. This is part of the meaning behind "youth culture": tell kids that their parents can never understand them and that their generation is "special," and you persuade them to purchase generation-specific fashions to affirm their "identity." Make a new kind of malcontent and you open up a new market.

The current economic order has a very strong interest in keeping everyone atomized and dissatisfied, inducing in them a lust for something to take the place of the deep and caring social relationships they don't have. That something turns out to be the goods that are hawked endlessly on TV and elsewhere.

quote:

Originally posted by fbgdavidson Quite, when I said I'd never add someone I wouldn't be happy to have a drink with it was implied that I had met them at some point. I guess that's because I'm British so as you say, a friend is not the same as an acquaintance. So my criteria: -Have I met you? -Would I have a drink with you? Yes, to both gets you added. I'm sure nobody gives a shit Like you I've had some people from other online communities where I am more active request me and I've just turned them down, or left them in the purgatory where they are neither denied nor accepted.

This is basically how I add people. If I don't like you, you would never end up on my "friends" list.

Jive: That is the shit I can't stand. Worldly possessions dictating happiness. I own very little, don't have a ton of electronics, things to "show" where my money has gone, yet I am quite content with my life thus far. I have some great friends that I would give the world for. I am fine just the way I am. I want a little bit more money per year at my job, but only so that I can travel more and see the world. And go to school.

quote:

Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles Akridrot: A consumption-oriented economy thrives on social isolation and insensitivity to "intellectual goods." People who derive most of their happiness from hanging out with their friends and family, or from inexpensive hobbies like reading or art, feel little need for big ticket items. They get their emotional satisfaction in less tangible ways. If you borrow DVDs and CDs and books from your friends rather than buying them, you are worth far less to the corporations who manufacture those things. If lots of people live contentedly in the same home, that means fewer washing machines, televisions, ovens, computers, and vacuum cleaners will be sold, since those things can easily be shared by people who live under the same roof -- not to mention that fewer houses will be built in the first place. So the mantra of "independence" is trumpeted, idealizing the pleasure and "freedom" of possessing one's very own [insert expensive item here]. Never mind the dependence on creditors and employers that frequently results when people take such a mantra seriously. Encourage domestic discontent, encourage a rift between generations that makes living under the same roof intolerable, and you suddenly create a "need" for thousands of more products and funnel lots of money to the industries that manufacture them and the other industries that gather the necessary raw materials. Thousands of new houses must be built, thousands of new appliances made, and thousands of jobs are created to throw the economic giant into motion. This is part of the meaning behind "youth culture": tell kids that their parents can never understand them and that their generation is "special," and you persuade them to purchase generation-specific fashions to affirm their "identity." Make a new kind of malcontent and you open up a new market. The current economic order has a very strong interest in keeping everyone atomized and dissatisfied, inducing in them a lust for something to take the place of the deep and caring social relationships they don't have. That something turns out to be the goods that are hawked endlessly on TV and elsewhere.

You know what you need to do? You need to start writing in a blog. I am fucking serious. Maybe you'll publish weekly or monthly, or when you have the time. Whatever. Start a blog. (I also think Arbiter would be a good blogger, but I haven't seen him around lately.)

Stop wasting these excellent thoughts in forums, you need to start blogging. Promote and people will read it. I will certainly be reading it. You probably already have a solid readership from the COR alone.

If you think you'd like to just copy paste a collection of your best posts so far just for starters, that would work too. I really want to see you do this. Are you motivated to do this, though? Are you even interested in doing this if you were assured that your blog would be read?

haha Akridot, you should have seen his post a month or so back. He is lost. I told him he needs to travel.

quote:

Originally posted by gehzumteufel haha Akridot, you should have seen his post a month or so back. He is lost. I told him he needs to travel.

We are all lost, in some way.

quote:

Originally posted by Akridrot We are all lost, in some way.

Agreed, but he had a really good thread. I don't even remember the title, but it basically was dealing with the point of life and your goals and aspirations. If he can find it (I assume he can) you should take a gander. It is a good read.

quote:

Originally posted by Akridrot You know what you need to do? You need to start writing in a blog. I am fucking serious. Maybe you'll publish weekly or monthly, or when you have the time. Whatever. Start a blog. (I also think Arbiter would be a good blogger, but I haven't seen him around lately.) Stop wasting these excellent thoughts in forums, you need to start blogging. Promote and people will read it. I will certainly be reading it. You probably already have a solid readership from the COR alone. If you think you'd like to just copy paste a collection of your best posts so far just for starters, that would work too. I really want to see you do this. Are you motivated to do this, though? Are you even interested in doing this if you were assured that your blog would be read?

Most of the "intelligent" stuff I post about has already been written about in more depth by people who are smarter than I am.



I guess it might be useful to collect all these ideas in one place, though, for future reference and to "expose" anyone who happens to be interested in the kind of social theory and cultural criticism that occupies my time.

Bryan, just go travel! NOW!

quote:

Originally posted by gehzumteufel Jive: That is the shit I can't stand. Worldly possessions dictating happiness. I own very little, don't have a ton of electronics, things to "show" where my money has gone, yet I am quite content with my life thus far. I have some great friends that I would give the world for. I am fine just the way I am. I want a little bit more money per year at my job, but only so that I can travel more and see the world. And go to school.

Same here, though I've been to school Although I sport a Union Jack in my profile I live in America (I'm British so there is a reason!) and it's funny here there is a tendency to only buy expensive things if there is a way you can show it off to people.

A huge watch that is far too big and shiny for your wrist, a designer handbag (preferably gold/brown monogrammed Louis Vuitton ) that you dangle out ahead of you, a giganto SUV with spinners that are so shiny you get blinded as they drive past, a shirt with the designer's name plasted all across it, ad finitium...

Don't get me wrong, I own nice things but I buy them purely for my own enjoyment and not to gain attention from others.

And travel is pretty much my number 1 expenditure and this year by quite a distance!

quote:

Originally posted by gehzumteufel Bryan, just go travel! NOW!

I am pretty content now, to be honest. I've discovered that the most important thing in my life -- apart from simple survival, family, and friends -- is to be part of an intellectual community. What makes me happy is interacting with a group of people who put a very high value on knowledge, books, art, and ideas. I haven't really found that in my offline life, so I take what I can get from boards. But I am still looking and not too broken up about it.

quote:

Originally posted by fbgdavidson Don't get me wrong, I own nice things but I buy them purely for my own enjoyment and not to gain attention from others. And travel is pretty much my number 1 expenditure and this year by quite a distance!

I thoroughly hate being the center of attention. My friends all know that. I stay out of the "limelight" that so many love to be in. It just does not fit me. I hate too much attention.

And yeah, travel is one expensive thing, but I don't make enough to make it my number one expenditure.

quote:

Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles I am pretty content now, to be honest. I've discovered that the most important thing in my life -- apart from simple survival, family, and friends -- is to be part of an intellectual community. What makes me happy is interacting with a group of people who put a very high value on knowledge, books, art, and ideas. I haven't really found that in my offline life, so I take what I can get from boards. But I am still looking and not too broken up about it.

Well that is good to hear you aren't so down about it.

quote:

Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles The way I understand the question, Akridrot was not just asking "Would you choose a pile of money over having lots of friends?", but something like, "Would you choose a pile of money in your current society over living in a changed society where people valued friendship, art, and hospitality to strangers more than they valued being the richest on their block?"

Nowadays I value "social wealth" a lot, but I wouldn't pick such a world, because I wouldn't be comfortable with leeching off other people's stuff.

I'm sorry to rain on your little utopic parade, put this romantic vision you're having simply isn't possible. I don't disagree that we're trained to want to buy stuff, but this highly competitive, consumerist system exists for a reason - it makes the world go forward quicker. The quality of life of everyone increases, and I'm not talking about the ability to buy superfluous things, like all the shit that pops out on TV adverts. I'm talking about making more food and making all the food reach out to everyone as the population increases. I'm talking about advancing medical science so that we can prolong our life expectancy and fight newly discovered diseases. The capitalistic system is very good at improving these things as a side-effect of everyone being greedy cunts.

But the biggest problem with having everyone sharing things to strangers and all, and the main reason why this conversation you're having is ridiculous, is trust. It's impossible to convince everyone to have good intentions to everyone. There will always be psychopaths, burglars, con-men, rapists, aggressive wankers, no matter what kind of society do you intend to have. In a small community, maybe you could keep track of the bad sheep and fully trust everyone else. But in a world where there's 5 billion people, you need to be wary of any stranger as they could be any of these things. Distrust is a very important trait, without which humanity could've never reached the status it has nowadays.

I've wrote all this and now suddenly realise I'm not really sure what am I criticising - you two just wrote some very vague ideas and no particular way in how they could be applied.

quote:

Originally posted by noikeee I don't disagree that we're trained to want to buy stuff, but this highly competitive, consumerist system exists for a reason - it makes the world go forward quicker.

There is a difference, I think, between people wanting to prolong their life and get rid of disease through medicine and between everyone hankering after a yacht and a mansion, for example. One kind of desire leads to a definite expansion of knowledge, technology, and improved quality of life. The other -- well, not so much. And there can be strong motives other than monetary profit in the expansion of science and technology: people genuinely did want to go to the moon and beyond even if no private company would take on such a dubious financial burden.

Basic research often works better when done by government agencies, since unlike technical or engineering applications it has a very uncertain payoff, making corporations hesitant to invest in it.

Anyway, I have nothing against a free enterprise system or market, which incidentally is not necessarily synonymous with "capitalism." Akridrot was certainly not recommending communism, since he said a while ago that he wanted people to have the ability to get rich if they wanted to. He just wished that people put "getting rich" lower on the value scale than things like friendliness, creativity, and intellectual interests, and I share that wish.

As far as those ineradicable psychopaths and criminals go, history and even a casual comparison of countries indicates that their frequency can vary quite a bit. In a society centered primarily around friendships and less material interests, I think there would be fewer of those types even if they never vanished altogether.

quote:

Originally posted by noikeee Nowadays I value "social wealth" a lot, but I wouldn't pick such a world, because I wouldn't be comfortable with leeching off other people's stuff.

Leeching? Who said anything about leeching? If anything, people would be more motivated to becoming a productive member of society for themselves, so that they could help others. If everyone is helping each other and being humble, there are no leeches. Yes, in this society, you'd have junkies, layabouts, and good for nothings abusing this. And I can see why people wouldn't want to even entertain the idea of such a system with the way things are now. But if things were different, those unproductive members of society would be called out and they would be given help elsewhere.

Sounds harsh? Not really.

quote:

I'm sorry to rain on your little utopic parade, put this romantic vision you're having simply isn't possible. I don't disagree that we're trained to want to buy stuff, but this highly competitive, consumerist system exists for a reason - it makes the world go forward quicker.

Bullshit. It slows down progress in many cases. Ever heard of cease and desist when a greedy corporation wants to sit on a fucking patent that someone much smaller than them developed independently because they don't want the little guy to come up, but at the same time they won't release their useful invention until they're good and ready? Fuck that. That is not progress. Compare that to a world where such greedy corporations wouldn't be given a chance to grow and where all ideas are shared for the good of everyone, not just lining up one's person's pockets... with progress as a side effect.

Competition doesn't exist outside of consumerism? Are you serious? Stop and think about that.

quote:

The quality of life of everyone increases, and I'm not talking about the ability to buy superfluous things, like all the shit that pops out on TV adverts. I'm talking about making more food and making all the food reach out to everyone as the population increases.

This would be more practical under the new system, not less. We would actually have many more people involved in trying to help their fellow man out. We would have more volunteers, more organizers, more leaders, and more communities available (because they wouldn't be tied down with a meaningless job doing meaningless work, this is more important than that) to support the cause. Of course, this means we'd have more power to make the changes that so many have dreamed about.

quote:

I'm talking about advancing medical science so that we can prolong our life expectancy and fight newly discovered diseases. The capitalistic system is very good at improving these things as a side-effect of everyone being greedy cunts.

Once again, in a society where everyone strives towards intellectual pursuits as opposed to today where only a few do, how can you say that progress will be less?

There's a much more effective parallel to greed that can drive people to improve and create new things: the genuine desire to explore. We are a curious species, we inhabit so many corners of this planet, which was essential to our survival. You keep thinking that the desire to change the world, the desire to discover and solve new problems, and the desire to earn recognition from peers is something will immediately disappear forever or be severely weakened if we no longer lived in a capitalist society. That's bullshit.

[quoet]
But the biggest problem with having everyone sharing things to strangers and all, and the main reason why this conversation you're having is ridiculous, is trust. It's impossible to convince everyone to have good intentions to everyone. There will always be psychopaths, burglars, con-men, rapists, aggressive wankers, no matter what kind of society do you intend to have. In a small community, maybe you could keep track of the bad sheep and fully trust everyone else. But in a world where there's 5 billion people, you need to be wary of any stranger as they could be any of these things. Distrust is a very important trait, without which humanity could've never reached the status it has nowadays.
[/quote]

Of course. And that's why (guess what) we are going to keep our distrust of people who we know might harm us. We will even be better at spotting and finding out who these harmful people are by knowing who their friends are and learning about their reputation more easily then is possible today. This doesn't mean it's a creepy stalker culture: your reputation is a matter of public interest, in my mind. Nobody ever suggested ushering in an age of naive, gullible people, in fact, the exact opposite was suggested. If people communicate and socialize with their friends and their friend's friends more, then it's much easier to connect everyone and that's how we will have a strangerless society. Nobody said anything about random people on the street meeting and going to each other's houses.

quote:

I've wrote all this and now suddenly realise I'm not really sure what am I criticising - you two just wrote some very vague ideas and no particular way in how they could be applied.

It's not that it's a vague idea, it's that your imagination and vision of the complete picture is vague. It is a big idea, not a vague one. There is a tremendous difference, but you won't see it as clearly as we do unless you already have the big picture fully realized in your head. You have a different picture in your head than we do, that's why I'm disagreeing with you on so many points. You aren't thinking about the same system I'm thinking.

I've wrote at length about every single issue you stated, and it would be extremely tedious to search every single little text file for a paragraph or two about this stuff.

I would just like to make two things clear, and you must carefully understand this:

1. You all assume that I'm talking about world peace, which is really unrealistic. I am not. I'm talking about what I think is the next logical step in human civilization as I see things. It will just take time.

2. More social != more naive and being a super nice doormat. You fail to understand the true potential of socializing and improving our communications and relations with others. You're thinking about it the wrong way, really. Soon there will be an era where we all become closer and closer, and that doesn't mean with complete strangers out of NOWHERE.


It's hard to explain this because there's so much to explain, like I said before.

I'd rather be socially-wealthy, smart with what I do with it and become financially set for life. I'm going to be able to not only take care of myself, but also my family as well if I end up having one.

If you're dead-ass broke or living paycheck to paycheck, you think your social-connections are going to pay for your bills? You think they're going to care if your house forecloses and you end up getting thrown out into the streets?

For me the biggest perk for being financially wealthy isn't buying designer clothes, yachts, mansions, but it means to be financially secure for life. Who wants to be making barely enough just to pay the monthly apartment rent?

To ascribe a term such as 'wealth' implies only perpetuation of personal interest. If we are to speak of the economics of society, it must be realized that competition is not something exclusive to mere capitalism, though it is the very flagship of the philosophy. Rather, 'wealth' denotes a comparison of achievement or status; a competitive advantage when it comes to innate aims of our physiology such as individual and group perpetuation of integrity by means of reproductive propensity, maintenance of the individual/group ego, and, ultimately, perpetuation of the doctrine itself. So long as competition exists, there will be wealth, and so long as wealth exists, in any sense, there shall be jealousy, malice, suffering, and defeat. But this competitive existence lends itself to positive avenues as well: hope, fulfillment, gratification of impulse, something to look forward to or to temper the individual to the point of being successful within their realm. In this sense, I would say that the risk defines the reward.

But I must express my displeasure at the lofty vision of a perfect Utopian society. Of course it's impossible. That's not the point of this thread. But to use this vision as a cornerstone of the very hope we would compete for not only taints the very elements of dismissing such distress, it is flawed to the point where the reality of it negates even the hypocrisy.

A 'better lifestyle' is the very essence of economy, social or financial. What you are suggesting is that a decision is to be made, parsing the exchange of imaginary currency in contrast to imaginary empathic connections. You wish people cared less about money and instead cared more for one another, and I am saying that society and money are practically the same damn thing. True, the affordability of cash does not necessarily grant meaningful social connections just as having a large network of social relations does not pay your electric bill. Were fiscal currency to be abolished, there would still be no such thing as free luxury. Money is merely a placeholder for intention; a script written to establish a commonality amongst people's competitive status within society and used to connect the imaginary world we are under tacit contract of with the dangerous, material world looming over our mortality with equal intention.

And does a vigilant and empathetic society comfort you? Does it fill you with the same hope for connection that financial competition does? I think so. I feel it is merely greed of a different sort; tangerine dreams of enlightenment and the plush embrace of conviction in ones ability to better the crowd by dissolving identity. No thanks. I don't share this dream. Some days, I wake up and feel like my "fellow man" can burn. That the essence of competition is one of the purest ideals [un]known to sentience and that the feigning of social fulfillment is only a lubricant prescribed to the weak by those who wish to profit from them. No, I don't wish a better lifestyle for anyone save for those whom I love, and the extent of this does not require vigilance nor the proselytization into insect mechanics.

So to answer your question, I would prefer Financial wealth, if there is to exist such a division. For if there why this is a story all about how my life became flipped and turned upside down. And I want to take a minute while you are seated to relate to you how I became accepted into the Royal elite as Prince of a town known as Bel-Air. I was born and raised in the western side of Philadelphia, spending much of my time on the grounds allocated to juvenile play. I was quite partial to basketball in those days, until a band of Ruffians no doubt up to no good began making trouble in my neighbourhood. After only a single fight, my mother grew frightful and decided it would be in my own best interest to be sent to live with my distant family of Bel-Air. When I whistled for a carriage and it came near to me, I noticed the license plate said "Fresh" and that a pair of fuzzy dice hung upon the driver's mirror, obviously indicating his temperamental rarity. When we arrived at my destination, I noticed the obvious opulence of the house in which I was to dwell and rule. I proceeded to exit the vehicle and express my displeasure at the cab-driver's putrid musk, but my true distractions lie before me: for little did I know at this point I was to become Prince of this Bel-Air establishment.

This really is no laughing matter, you schlep.

I'll schlep you right across the face!



WAKKA WAKKA!

DURR HURR HU-

Hur

H-...

.

=/

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.