Horse 3529 - Eudaimonia - Element XX - Enjoy

The problem with humans living firstly in the twentieth century and then the twenty first century, is that we can pretty well get everything we need all the time. The number of people living in extreme poverty where absolutely basic things like food, shelter, and clothing, aren't being met, has fallen to the point where now this purely exists as an allocation issue. This isn't to say that people aren't starving in the world but the reason that they are starving is not caused by lack of food, rather if there was the political and economic will it would literally disappear within a month.

The other side of this is that we live in a world which can now provide constant excess of the basics, to the point where there are diseases caused by that excess.

Perhaps the most visible diseases caused by that excess is Obesity which is the outward manifestation of the excess of food. Various diseases like lung cancer, liver failure, and other organ damage are the manifestation of the excess of alcohol, cigarettes, and other drugs. I would even argue that on a societal level, the fact that we now have entire generations locked out of home ownership, is the manifestation of the excess of capital and power being concentrated in fewer and fewer hands.

The traditional viewpoint is that the vice which describes this is gluttony; which is caused by overconsumption. While that might very well describe the vice, the corresponding virtue of temperance and/or moderation, seeks only to modify the behaviour and I don't think actually addresses the underlying problem contained within the human soul. 

As I have suggested on a number of occasions in this series, the centre of the universe is 19mm behind people's corneas. People are not only the centre of their own perception but with constant reinforcement, they are also the hero of their own story. The beast that shouts "I" at the heart of the world, with unlimited unlimited wants, wants everything all of the time. The consequences of trying to feed unlimited unlimited wants all of the time, are described above. If the answer is not necessarily trying to cut off all desire because that seems from the outset to be actually impossible, then what is to be done about this?

As someone who works in an environment where everyone is paid more than I am, what is really apparent is that they aren't any happier than I am, despite and maybe even because of the fact that they are being paid more. Too much is never enough; which seems to be a maxim irrespective of what the field of play happens to be.

What is also strangely apparent is that not even the quality of whatever the thing in question appears to be enough. If it isn't more that people want, then it is a higher and higher quality of stuff that people want. This is why in principle that conspicuous consumption of Veblen Goods, is readily explainable even in the face of logic.

Anecdote is not evidence and I am but one data point but as someone who can eat a cheese and devon sandwich with mayo for lunch, and be more satisfied with my lunch than someone who spends more in a day than I spend in a fortnight, then this suggests that something else is going on.

In the greater scheme of work, I have been driven to despair this year. Mere sadness can sometimes be a useful prompt to lead someone to fix the situation but despair is the more profound realisation that no action will make a difference. Given this, what is one to do in the face of this?

The two things which I appear to have any control over at work, and over which I have any control are when I arrive and the attitude about the situation which I control. Of the former, if I arrive before anyone else, I gain peace and quiet in the space; of the latter, control requires a conscious effort and choice.

Here's the fun realisation. You can choose to enjoy anything. 

I think that the single most glorious thing that exists for lunch, is a grilled cheese sandwich with hochi sauce. There's nothing particularly glamourous or difficult about it but it is nice. 

There is nothing as magical as particular cups of tea, which are just absolutely perfect; seemingly for no reason at all. 

I like my Mazda 2, which is not an expensive car and neither is it a big one. It is fun to drive and I do like to just pootle about in it, even if it is just going to the shops. 

I like mornings where nothing in particular happens, and I can just sit in the sunshine while the washing machine is doing its business.

I mention those things because I think that there is a quiet glory in the mundane. This is not necessarily a defence of simplicity, but it is a suggestion that always wanting more and always wanting better is a fool's errand, which doesn't actually lead to any more happiness.

The Greek philosopher Epicurus once suggested that what he needed for happiness was a jug of wine, a small pot of cheese, and four friends. In this respect, the art of frugal hedonism comes close to the actual concept of this post in that by not chasing after luxury or excess, it gives you a better ability to fully appreciate the simple, beautiful moments around you every day.

The final piece of this particular puzzle is the very point of this post. What happens if life is hard, or lonely, or difficult, or if people are stupid obnoxious and daft? What then? What can you do if this is the case? 

Enjoying things, is actually a choice. It is actually a choice to decide to really enjoy that cup of tea, or to find small pleasures in work, or to enjoy the warmth of the sunshine, or as Epicurus suggests the philos of friends and family, or the calm before the world turns to horridness. It is a choice to choose that enough is enough, or that something simple is beautiful. 

If you want to take this as a command, then do so. Choose to Enjoy things.

Horse 3528 - Eudaimonia - Element XIX - Detachment

There is a skate clothing brand called SMP, which has never stated what the acronym stands for and has been deliberately left undefined. Depending on what the marketing department wanted to do at the time, SMP in various as campaigns has stood for: Skate More Parks, Surf More Pipes, So Much Possibilities, and particularly useful for the purposes of this post Sex Money Power.

That last set of things which the acronym could stand for, are the three things that we would usually associate with what was classically known as the vice of Luxuria or in English is known as Lust. Lust for more Sex, lust for more money, and lust for more power, are generally seen as destructive.

What is curious is that over the centuries, the word Luxuria has become more associated with the concept of luxury and has been decoupled from the notion of moral hazard. On the other hand, Lust generally has narrowed in definition to the point where people's first thought about the word is almost always of a sexual nature and the other perfectly valid uses of the word require qualifiers.

In the first instance it would seem that the antivice would be things like chastity, poverty, and submission. However, while these might address the actions of the moral hazard, they do not of themselves address the underlying motivation of the individual generating them. 

Probably the best word to describe this set of animal urges, physical desires, and material craving, is either Epithumia which mostly is concerned with how the appetitive parts of someone's nature are connected to the soul. This is the part of the soul constantly yelling and demanding the "Yummy, Yummy" thing with no regard for the context or the consequence, either with respect to the individual or anyone else.

In relation to unlimited unlimited wants, this is where a line is crossed into unlimited unlimited unsatisfiable wants; and where the gratification of those wants eventually consumes the individual.

The end of literally all desires in response to this is likely impossible. Wants and especially wants tied to needs such as food, shelter, clothing, warmth, love, peace, calm, et cetera, will always continue to exist as the individual continues to exist.

When all else fails, an interrogation of the wants and needs, must invariably lead one to the conclusion that the satisfaction of those needs and wants must fall short. When it comes to the falling short of wants that perhaps were destructive, or unrealistic in the first place, then it is good to ask "why?" of those wants. 

Humans are limited beings in time, space, ability, and power. The answer to that question of "why?" in relation to why wants those things, is perhaps best met with Detachment and a deliberate choice to let go of those expectations or desires, especially in relation to the unlimited unlimited unsatisfiable wants of sex, money, power, et cetera. 

Since Luxuria and Epithumia are tied to the cultivation of the inner life, then the integration and detachment of one's self is very likely to lead to inner freedom and peace, because if you're not carrying the burden of expectations they can not weigh you down.

Horse 3527 - Eudaimonia - Element XVIII - Generosity

There is a legend which relates to the invention of the number zero, which probably isn't true but inadvertently demonstrates something interesting.

To wit:

A man was arguing with a trader in a marketplace, over the price of spices and they came to a disagreement.

"None of these numbers are amounts that I want to pay," he said to himself.

So he considered all of the numbers and drew a circle in the dust.

"Inside this circle is nothing. This is the amount that I want to pay. I shall call it jeero."

I am not ashamed of sporking this story for a different purpose than intended because although it speaks about the invention of a 0 as a mathematical concept, it also touches on that most base of human desires to want things at no cost to themselves.

Every Economics 1A class will begin with the starting premise that economics tends to describe satisfying unlimited wants with limited resources and that markets are just an allocation mechanism in achieving that. Very rarely is the notion of unlimited wants examined itself. The curious thing about those unlimited wants, is that they are unlimited in being unlimited.

The problem with unlimited unlimited wants is that they are by nature insatiable. It is literally impossible to multiply all the zeroes in the universe and even get to one. 

The Greeks called this "pleonexia". The Romans called it "avaritia". The English word "greed" is derived from the West Saxon word "grædig" which just means "hungry".

Hunger is fine. As a signal that someone hasn't eaten anything in a while, it is useful. As an insatiable desire for material gain, be it food, money, land, animate or inanimate possessions, defined by unlimited unlimited wants, it is destructive.

Unlimited unlimited wants, which almost by definition includes more than one's rightful share, can only come at the expense of others. Unlimited unlimited wants for material things, or social status, or power, at the expense of others in the community, invariably comes with the degradation of those others in the community.

Here's the rub. If you don't actually care about those others, nor care that they are paying that expense, nor care about their degradation, then that's a perfectly acceptable price. For you, it is the price of zero, which is the amount that you want to pay.

Classical Buddhism would suggest that the proper way to stop being dissatisfied with the perpetual grasping for things, is to learn to live peacefully with the skilful desires while letting go of the unproductive ones. That all sounds fine and dandy if you want to pursue a path of asceticism but how practical is it?

There is value in learning to be content with what you have but again, while this is a practice that can be cultivated, as a human where the centre of the observable universe is 19mm behind our corneas, that is easier said than done.

It should be obvious to anyone who has lived for more than 24 hours, that humans as limited animated creatures, have basic needs for things like food, clothing, shelter, and more abstract needs for things like purpose, meaning, community, and love, and that the edges between needs and wants are very blurry indeed. I would argue that it isn't any kind of moral hazard to want to have your needs met, nor necessarily to want nice things.

Everything mentioned thus far looks purely at trying to satisfy an individual's unlimited unlimited wants. However, if you open your eyes just a little bit, there just happen to be other people in the world, who also live complex lives and who by virtue of being human, are worthy of dignity and having things being given to them.

Generosity suggests that not only is the other worthy of dignity and having things being given to them, but that it should come at our expense.

If we boil everything down to pure economics, then literally everything worth anything comes down to how much people want the thing at a price and how much someone else is willing to supply that thing at a price. Irrespective of whether the underlying motivation is one of greed or generosity, someone somewhere is paying. 

You can of course see this in the current discourse surrounding Capital Gains Tax proposals, and the almost malevolent opposition to any kind of removal of advantage for people who already own capital and property. People who own these their are definitely not generous, especially when someone else is paying for their advantage by way of rent. The idea that there should be public housing to meet people's needs is anathema to these people. Society repeatedly chooses to not see others as actually worth enough to meet the expense of basic dignity.

Across the OECD, total charitable giving amounts to no more than about 2% even if you choose to allow for tax distortions by including donations to churches and religious organisations which is almost unique to the United States. By demonstration, people just aren't generous. By way of comparison, the broader U.S. food sector represents roughly 6% of GDP and snacks account for about a third of that; which means that charity and snacks are actually valued about the same in economic terms.

In economic terms, we don't really believe that our fellow humans are actually worthy of dignity and having things being given to them; as much as we believe that our immediate need for snacks is important.

Generosity it would seem is reasonably rare. It is so rare that it accounts for one fiftieth of people's actual accounting. The unbelievable truth hidden in plain sight is that if people actually were generous and demonstrated civic philos, the world would change very radically and very quickly. 

But it doesn't and it won't.

Horse 3526 - Eudaimonia - Element XVII - Humility

It seems to me that the vast majority of people when questioned if they think that they are a "good person" will answer in the affirmative. The reason for this is at least twofold as it rests on the twin pillars of the fact that humans must invariably be the centre of their own perception of the universe, coupled with the fact that good self-esteem is basis of how one determines their own overall sense of personal worth and value.

However, a thing judged against a self derived yardstick, especially when motivated to determine a favourable judgement unilaterally, doesn't seem to me to be either objective or reliable. In fact, so egocentric are humans, that if someone comes to the conclusion that they are a "bad person" then the rest of us might conclude that they are somehow faulty and have low self-esteem, even though by an external yardstick that judgement might actually be perfectly honest.

It seems therefore just and reasonable to me that if superbia and hubris are generally marked as vices, then the antivice is going to be the active cultivation of an accurate recognition of one's place in relation to others. 

This actually leads one to a strange conclusion. The logical antivice for Superbia is probably some kind of self degradation. 

The word "humility" itself is derived from the Roman word "humilitas", which relates to being close to the ground or the earth. This was not anything remotely desirable, as for classical philosophers like Aristotle or Plato, this definitely carries a sense of lowness and a lack of social standing. This is a place of failure and debasement; which the Greek at first and then the Romans, would have very much blamed the individual for bringing upon themselves.

The whole idea that humility might be an antivice or perhaps even a virtue, is absolutely not something which the Greeks or Romans would have accepted.

However, an accurate reckoning of the value of one's self, might actually bestow one with a sense of quiet confidence. I might not necessarily be the best at X but I can do M, N, P, and Q, with some degree of competence.

What I find slightly disturbing is that the people who are actually best at putting the needs of others, either singularly or in community, ahead of their own personal recognition, are often the most neglected by others and the community at large. The question of who cares for the carer, is the forgotten question when someone properly cultivates and demonstrates a sense of humility.

Superbia is big and brash and loud but its antivice which tends to be small and measured and quiet, actually has a bigger impact when it is removed. People often whoop for joy when a person who operates with superbia is gone, but they won't necessarily notice when someone who has developed a streak of humility has gone. What they will notice is when the systems being held up by those people start to strain and/or break.

Superbia also happens to come with costs. Maintaining one's fame, or reputation, is expensively draining upon the individual who has to constantly keep face. Perhaps one of the most humble aspects of humility is the fact that not actually having to care about constantly comparing one's self to others in order to establish that sense of self worth, is actually a quiet state of freedom. Someone who is able to genuinely not care about what others think, doesn't have to expend the emotional currency of caring in the first place. Admittedly that does come with the secondary expense of often being treated badly by those people for who superbia is modus operandi.

Probably one of the strangest paradoxes about this antivice is that someone who is actually able to cultivate that sense of not caring about what others think, is also able to eliminate what they think about themselves. A person walking in genuine humility will not be thinking about trying to be humble. If someone is excellent in the task of putting the needs of others, either singularly or in community, above their own, they have no need to demand glory or recognition because in not care about what others think about them or thinking about trying to display humility, they end up not thinking about themselves at all.