The Meaning of Life

@muir

Concept of a created condition. Same difference - I never said it was only a perception.

My entire point is that if it weren't for revolutionary progress, we would not have it. At least not in the same way.

I see what you mean

I guess there are different forms of poverty or rather that poverty opeates on a number of different levels

It seems that in the wake of imperialism we always see the colonised people go through the same fragmentation process which is not entirely an economic thing
 
I see what you mean

I guess there are different forms of poverty or rather that poverty opeates on a number of different levels

It seems that in the wake of imperialism we always see the colonised people go through the same fragmentation process which is not entirely an economic thing

Yes. I think poverty is less about what you don't have, and more about what you're no longer able to do. Functioning correctly and living well is the main thing an impoverished person is no longer able to do. It's not because they are poor, it's because balance and ability to be sufficient has been destroyed.

It's not just being poor, it's being ghetto poor.
 
Yes. I think poverty is less about what you don't have, and more about what you're no longer able to do. Functioning correctly and living well is the main thing an impoverished person is no longer able to do. It's not because they are poor, it's because balance and ability to be sufficient has been destroyed.

It's not just being poor, it's being ghetto poor.

Can a rich person have a poverty of love?

Can they also be spiritually bankrupt?
 
But of course, poverty could be darn good.

Think Jesuits. Sworn to poverty. Hindu mystics, wearing nothing but rags. Buddha, desiring to have no desire...

So I think the real question is, when is poverty a good thing?
 
But of course, poverty could be darn good.

Think Jesuits. Sworn to poverty. Hindu mystics, wearing nothing but rags. Buddha, desiring to have no desire...

So I think the real question is, when is poverty a good thing?

I don't think the jesuits are really about poverty. I think they are a very powerful order whose task is to militantly spread the power of the catholic church. Interestingly the current pope is a jesuit which means that the militant wing is directly in control of the main body of the church

I think with hindu ascetics it is not stigmatised to pursue a spiritual path. often a person will have a job and a family and then in the later part of their life they might take on the spiritual path

Often sadhus are reliant on the people for their food. This probably harks back to a time when society had a priesthood who were the guardians of societies knowledge and religion and who would preside over the great festivals that mark the stages of the year; the population would support them in that role so they didn't need to work in the fields. instead a priest would have a 20 year training in astronomy, astrology and other mysteries. this would probably have been a common path for INFJ's back in the day

I don't see what hindu sadhus are doing as poverty as they still have their cultural integrity and identity and they are not stigmatised. they are also generally not wanting for anything as the people support them in their endevour
 
Last edited:
But of course, poverty could be darn good.

Think Jesuits. Sworn to poverty. Hindu mystics, wearing nothing but rags. Buddha, desiring to have no desire...

So I think the real question is, when is poverty a good thing?
Poverty is so romanticized. Try living in rags in alaska then tell me how great it is.
 
Poverty is so romanticized. Try living in rags in alaska then tell me how great it is.

If a random person tried to do this they would struggle because they would have a poverty of experience and culture and equipment and know how of doing that

However the people native to that area might have manged it well because although they didn't have many of the trappings of western life then like mobile phones, trainers, fridges, cars, snow ploughs, rifles and various gizmos they had experience, know how and eqipment necessary to survive in that environment and crucially they had their own culture and sense of identity that gave them strength on an intangible level so they were not in a state of poverty despite not having 'wealth' in a western sense

Once outside forces came in and disintegrated their culture, identity and language and slowly robbed them of their know how and experience by giving them the gizmos....then they experienced poverty
 
If a random person tried to do this they would struggle because they would have a poverty of experience and culture and equipment and know how of doing that

However the people native to that area might have manged it well because although they didn't have many of the trappings of western life then like mobile phones, trainers, fridges, cars, snow ploughs, rifles and various gizmos they had experience, know how and eqipment necessary to survive in that environment and crucially they had their own culture and sense of identity that gave them strength on an intangible level so they were not in a state of poverty despite not having 'wealth' in a western sense

Once outside forces came in and disintegrated their culture, identity and language and slowly robbed them of their know how and experience by giving them the gizmos....then they experienced poverty

We are talking about poverty here, not survivalism. Part of poverty is lacking the know how to make due.
 
We are talking about poverty here, not survivalism. Part of poverty is lacking the know how to make due.

I'm saying that poverty is not just about not having money...it is deeper than that
 
Poverty is so romanticized. Try living in rags in alaska then tell me how great it is.

Well poverty is also relative which is often overlooked.

There are many places in the world where one can live fine with rags. There are places where one can live naked.

Go ask a nudist colony if they feel impoverished without nice clothing.
 
Moreover there is poverty of energy and poverty of mind.

We often have a poverty of energy in the United States for example where society expects people to produce more than they are able to take in. When you pave over everything with roads and suck up energy with industry, you create an energy debt and propagate a bad form of entropy - it makes it require more work for everyone to survive, and therefore people end up impoverished because the base standard for survival has been elevated.

Basically it takes away the survival ability of the masses, centralize it, and makes people work more than necessary to have it, and also propagates waste by concentrating on unnecessary things. If everyone were more oriented towards essentials there would be less energy waste.

People end up throwing their lives away to generate more crap, 90% of it they probably don't even need and maybe can't actually even use fully. This is a life debt which is fatal.
 
Well poverty is also relative which is often overlooked.

There are many places in the world where one can live fine with rags. There are places where one can live naked.

Go ask a nudist colony if they feel impoverished without nice clothing.
Why would I ask that? They have enough to afford toblive in a house. How is that poverty?
 
It was before based on rags, now it's based on a house. This shows my point - it's relative.

How fun for you, you've won the internet.

It was not based on rags, when I say: go live in rags in Alaska in order to illustrate poverty, any casual observer should come to the logical inference that we are talking about having no food or shelter, minimal clothing, and no means to survive. AKA poverty. My point being that poverty is often romanticized in the terms of a yogi or monk who forsakes all comforts, gives all to the poor, in order to obtain some spiritual or even intellectual enlightenment and throwing away the desire to be comfortable (and living in what most would term poverty as a result, yes of course it is relative). But in actuality it sucks to be uncomfortable and it sucks even more to be in poverty. That is why we don't raise our kids to sit on the floor all day meditating and purposefully living in poverty (except for a tiny percentage of people, yes I am aware) - because it is not a state you want except for a romanticized version of it.

Of course a nudist colony is not a typical case, but they hardly live in poverty. You can one up me all you want though.
 
[MENTION=731]the[/MENTION]
Also I did live in poverty for a while after I quit work. I lived in a small trailer that cost $150, and was basically a shack on wheels. I could have built better out of corrugated tin. I was living by dumpster diving and thrift store and donated clothing, and life hacking. In winter even the drain pipes would freeze because they weren't sloped correctly and would hold water pockets, which made the toilet stop working, so I was pooping in buckets and wiping with newspapers. One year the furnace broke down in the dead of winter and I couldn't have it fixed so I was wearing a parka indoors pretty much all the time and using the gas oven for heat.

The thing that bothered me the most was difficulty getting proper food. I got used to everything else.
 
How fun for you, you've won the internet.

It was not based on rags, when I say: go live in rags in Alaska in order to illustrate poverty, any casual observer should come to the logical inference that we are talking about having no food or shelter, minimal clothing, and no means to survive. AKA poverty. My point being that poverty is often romanticized in the terms of a yogi or monk who forsakes all comforts, gives all to the poor, in order to obtain some spiritual or even intellectual enlightenment and throwing away the desire to be comfortable (and living in what most would term poverty as a result, yes of course it is relative). But in actuality it sucks to be uncomfortable and it sucks even more to be in poverty. That is why we don't raise our kids to sit on the floor all day meditating and purposefully living in poverty (except for a tiny percentage of people, yes I am aware) - because it is not a state you want except for a romanticized version of it.

Of course a nudist colony is not a typical case, but they hardly live in poverty. You can one up me all you want though.

The problem with that is a yogi or monk HAS enough food and clothing and shelter to get by. It works because they forsake everything else.

You obviously haven't studied enough actual yogis or monks. Research actual Buddhist monks that live today and see how impoverished they look. You won't see it.

They have clothes, they have shelter, and they have food. What they don't have is a waste of their energy. You won't see them looking like they live in a ghetto because societies are what make ghettos.

It's not the lack of stuff that prevents a person from living well in rags in Alaska. It's the mode of society eating up everything else and preventing them from living well with that amount of material items.
 
I don't think the jesuits are really about poverty. I think they are a very powerful order whose task is to militantly spread the power of the catholic church. Interestingly the current pope is a jesuit which means that the militant wing is directly in control of the main body of the church

My mother's cousin is a Jesuit priest and has been serving in Brazil for over 40 years. He is a university professor there. The Jesuits do take a vow of poverty, which means living modestly but they do not lack any of the necessities of life. It is different than the type of poverty where people lack shelter, food or proper clothing.

Obviously their first mission is evangelisation but they also promote and provide education in poor communities as well as charity. The Jesuits are very well educated intellectuals. This is why there has been some mistrust between the main body of the Catholic Church and the Jesuits in the past. They have not hesitated in opposing the Pope and doing what they believe is best for the communities they are serving. They have done some great works to help the poor. I believe that the biggest tool for the elimination of poverty is education. This is why most communities where there are Jesuit missions are thriving. Charity alone does not eliminate poverty, but charity combined with proper education can.

The current Jesuit Pope is a great example as he is shaking things up in the Vatican ,choosing to live in modest lodgings, drives his own modest car, and suggested to people that would fly out for his installment as Pope to use the money it would cost to help the poor instead. He has even been recently called a Marxist because he has criticized capitalism.

Here's an actual recent Apostolic Exhortation from Pope Francis:

No to an economy of exclusion

53. Just as the commandment “Thou shalt not kill” sets a clear limit in order to safeguard the value of human life, today we also have to say “thou shalt not” to an economy of exclusion and inequality. Such an economy kills. How can it be that it is not a news item when an elderly homeless person dies of exposure, but it is news when the stock market loses two points? This is a case of exclusion. Can we continue to stand by when food is thrown away while people are starving? This is a case of inequality. Today everything comes under the laws of competition and the survival of the fittest, where the powerful feed upon the powerless. As a consequence, masses of people find themselves excluded and marginalized: without work, without possibilities, without any means of escape.

Human beings are themselves considered consumer goods to be used and then discarded. We have created a “throw away” culture which is now spreading. It is no longer simply about exploitation and oppression, but something new. Exclusion ultimately has to do with what it means to be a part of the society in which we live; those excluded are no longer society’s underside or its fringes or its disenfranchised – they are no longer even a part of it. The excluded are not the “exploited” but the outcast, the “leftovers”.

54. In this context, some people continue to defend trickle-down theories which assume that economic growth, encouraged by a free market, will inevitably succeed in bringing about greater justice and inclusiveness in the world. This opinion, which has never been confirmed by the facts, expresses a crude and naïve trust in the goodness of those wielding economic power and in the sacralized workings of the prevailing economic system. Meanwhile, the excluded are still waiting. To sustain a lifestyle which excludes others, or to sustain enthusiasm for that selfish ideal, a globalization of indifference has developed. Almost without being aware of it, we end up being incapable of feeling compassion at the outcry of the poor, weeping for other people’s pain, and feeling a need to help them, as though all this were someone else’s responsibility and not our own. The culture of prosperity deadens us; we are thrilled if the market offers us something new to purchase. In the meantime all those lives stunted for lack of opportunity seem a mere spectacle; they fail to move us.



[MENTION]muir [/MENTION]- seems like the Pope might have some similar views as you do
 
Here is the rest of the part of the exhortation that deals with money:

No to the new idolatry of money

55. One cause of this situation is found in our relationship with money, since we calmly accept its dominion over ourselves and our societies. The current financial crisis can make us overlook the fact that it originated in a profound human crisis: the denial of the primacy of the human person! We have created new idols. The worship of the ancient golden calf (cf. Ex 32:1-35) has returned in a new and ruthless guise in the idolatry of money and the dictatorship of an impersonal economy lacking a truly human purpose. The worldwide crisis affecting finance and the economy lays bare their imbalances and, above all, their lack of real concern for human beings; man is reduced to one of his needs alone: consumption.

56. While the earnings of a minority are growing exponentially, so too is the gap separating the majority from the prosperity enjoyed by those happy few. This imbalance is the result of ideologies which defend the absolute autonomy of the marketplace and financial speculation. Consequently, they reject the right of states, charged with vigilance for the common good, to exercise any form of control. A new tyranny is thus born, invisible and often virtual, which unilaterally and relentlessly imposes its own laws and rules. Debt and the accumulation of interest also make it difficult for countries to realize the potential of their own economies and keep citizens from enjoying their real purchasing power. To all this we can add widespread corruption and self-serving tax evasion, which have taken on worldwide dimensions. The thirst for power and possessions knows no limits. In this system, which tends to devour everything which stands in the way of increased profits, whatever is fragile, like the environment, is defenseless before the interests of a deified market, which become the only rule.

No to a financial system which rules rather than serves

57. Behind this attitude lurks a rejection of ethics and a rejection of God. Ethics has come to be viewed with a certain scornful derision. It is seen as counterproductive, too human, because it makes money and power relative. It is felt to be a threat, since it condemns the manipulation and debasement of the person. In effect, ethics leads to a God who calls for a committed response which is outside the categories of the marketplace. When these latter are absolutized, God can only be seen as uncontrollable, unmanageable, even dangerous, since he calls human beings to their full realization and to freedom from all forms of enslavement. Ethics – a non-ideological ethics – would make it possible to bring about balance and a more humane social order. With this in mind, I encourage financial experts and political leaders to ponder the words of one of the sages of antiquity: “Not to share one’s wealth with the poor is to steal from them and to take away their livelihood. It is not our own goods which we hold, but theirs”.[55]

58. A financial reform open to such ethical considerations would require a vigorous change of approach on the part of political leaders. I urge them to face this challenge with determination and an eye to the future, while not ignoring, of course, the specifics of each case. Money must serve, not rule! The Pope loves everyone, rich and poor alike, but he is obliged in the name of Christ to remind all that the rich must help, respect and promote the poor. I exhort you to generous solidarity and to the return of economics and finance to an ethical approach which favours human beings.

No to the inequality which spawns violence

59. Today in many places we hear a call for greater security. But until exclusion and inequality in society and between peoples are reversed, it will be impossible to eliminate violence. The poor and the poorer peoples are accused of violence, yet without equal opportunities the different forms of aggression and conflict will find a fertile terrain for growth and eventually explode. When a society – whether local, national or global – is willing to leave a part of itself on the fringes, no political programmes or resources spent on law enforcement or surveillance systems can indefinitely guarantee tranquility. This is not the case simply because inequality provokes a violent reaction from those excluded from the system, but because the socioeconomic system is unjust at its root. Just as goodness tends to spread, the toleration of evil, which is injustice, tends to expand its baneful influence and quietly to undermine any political and social system, no matter how solid it may appear. If every action has its consequences, an evil embedded in the structures of a society has a constant potential for disintegration and death. It is evil crystallized in unjust social structures, which cannot be the basis of hope for a better future. We are far from the so-called “end of history”, since the conditions for a sustainable and peaceful development have not yet been adequately articulated and realized.

60. Today’s economic mechanisms promote inordinate consumption, yet it is evident that unbridled consumerism combined with inequality proves doubly damaging to the social fabric. Inequality eventually engenders a violence which recourse to arms cannot and never will be able to resolve. It serves only to offer false hopes to those clamouring for heightened security, even though nowadays we know that weapons and violence, rather than providing solutions, create new and more serious conflicts. Some simply content themselves with blaming the poor and the poorer countries themselves for their troubles; indulging in unwarranted generalizations, they claim that the solution is an “education” that would tranquilize them, making them tame and harmless. All this becomes even more exasperating for the marginalized in the light of the widespread and deeply rooted corruption found in many countries – in their governments, businesses and institutions – whatever the political ideology of their leaders.


I think these are very wise words from the Pope.
 
The problem with that is a yogi or monk HAS enough food and clothing and shelter to get by. It works because they forsake everything else.

You obviously haven't studied enough actual yogis or monks. Research actual Buddhist monks that live today and see how impoverished they look. You won't see it.

They have clothes, they have shelter, and they have food. What they don't have is a waste of their energy. You won't see them looking like they live in a ghetto because societies are what make ghettos.

It's not the lack of stuff that prevents a person from living well in rags in Alaska. It's the mode of society eating up everything else and preventing them from living well with that amount of material items.

Are you trolling me? Cause if you are, then you got me. I admit it.
 
Back
Top