Asymmetrical warfare on! Or, "The haves have it."
This post looks like one of the more unusual battles I've lurked about here over the years.

In the red corner, those who in the main are happy to accept their status as people who define themselves / see themselves as defined by the stuff they surround themselves with (I'm not being disparaging, mind).
In the blue corner, those leaning away from ownership as a concept. Very much purple myself, and sort of shimmery to behold as I waver backwards and forwards, backwards and forwards.

Now there are those who feel all blue-cornery and talk about how they are increasingly defined not by what they own but by what they do. Which is lovely. Except that when you really look at it, what this group of blue-corner leaners aren't getting past is that they're simply replacing a material thing with a conceptual thing - a demonstrable thing whereby they can continue to see themselves reflected in the eyes of others - and thus continue to "know" that they exist. It's not a sustainable spot for a seeker to stand; it's just a spot along the way sometimes. But if we (there; caught me out, I admitted it) keep leaning bluewards, we eventually must come to a point of choice:
Accept that we need to consciously define ourselves by use of things or deeds or demonstrable traits that we can reliably believe a "reasonable third party" will take as a signifier of human familial worthiness, OR take the gamble that we might end up a mad rambling bag lady in the letting-go-ness. Or become enlightened. Not to say one isn't necessarily the other also.

My point is, that in this post, the blue-corner-wannabes like me will have our philosophical space to speak, and hope to inspire our ruddier brethren to take a step in the cooler-coloured direction (because trying to convince or inspire others to communicate supports our sense of being real), but in the end the materialists will win any such battle. Because the rest of us just hope to care less about who posts first, posts last, gets more clicks, makes more friends here, and so on. It is fun to watch though, isn't it?

Now I'm not sure whether I want you to click or not.....oh go on; go ahead - make my reality. I can always give them away later ;-)

Rant done, thanks.
(dadadali has hybrid vigour, Fri 9 May 2008, 13:32, 6 replies)

somewhere theres a fence
creaking under the strain...
(bazmorningstar efil4nat3b, Fri 9 May 2008, 13:37, closed)

I've thought about that, hard.
The things I have that I would actually want to save are things of material importance (laptop, important papers) and specific things that have good associations (my 12-string, great-grandpa's book, grandma's medical diploma). While I have many things of great value in that house in the form of family antiques, I'm really only considering myself their custodian until my kids are old enough to take them. Were my house to burn I'd be mad, but not crushed.
( The Resident Loon Not a demographic. Do not measure., Fri 9 May 2008, 13:40, closed)

I've been thinking about this...
... and I still can't figure out what the hell you're talking about.

Hey-ho.
( Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Fri 9 May 2008, 13:50, closed)

@ Enzyme
Thank god you said that! If you didn't get it then I can rest assured that it's not because it just went over my head.

Personally I think there are at least two arguments going on here - one to do with the QOTW - the Haves vs. the Havenots - or materialist against the nons.

There is also a whole other rant tucked in there at the end regarding the very philosophical nature of b3ta and the internet - is it a popularity contest, are those friends real?

But it all needs further unpacking in order for it to be clear to all readers.




Can you tell I've just finished marking papers?
( chickenlady b3ta's very own Elizabeth Taylor, Fri 9 May 2008, 16:58, closed)

Materialsim vs non-materialism
is the first part, followed by contemplating what's really important- that question, or whether or not people click on the stories.

Kind of an odd segue, but I followed it...
( The Resident Loon Not a demographic. Do not measure., Fri 9 May 2008, 18:56, closed)

OK, I'll try a bit harder
Main point - peopple want to know that they exist. We do this mostly by attempting to elicit a predictable response from other humans. Tree falling in the woods stuff. Materialism then is a gross, matter-based social construct whereby we can elicit a reasponse from others, and thereby validate our existence, more and more predictably by either the amount, or specific qualities of, the stuff we surround ourselves with. And behaviour, such as saying "I'm not a materialist" in a public forum, is simply another way of achieving the same outcome - validation by people. So those of us wishing to be less attached to material things ultimately face a quandary - either accept our ongoing need to be validated by others and do it in a different way than by the use of stuff, or make a big philosophical and behavioural leap into consciously choosing not to want to seem - well, like anything at all. In which case, if I had been successful in this tonight, you wouldn't see my post. There is no argument.
(dadadali has hybrid vigour, Sat 10 May 2008, 12:13, closed)