If you didn't notice, I have written the past few posts as responses to these funny cards that I have. They aren't exactly tarot cards, but more like hippie cards. I never had the full deck; I got them for free when I worked at BookPeople in Austin and they cleaned up their tarot and other cards display. I got a strange collection of cards that I have since used for collage making and thought provoking.
"You can do no wrong" makes me think of this article I recently read at Slate Magazine.
And in turn, this article makes me think about the people in yoga classes who seemingly show off. And it makes me wonder about my own abstination from metaphorically sending myself flowers.
I like to buy extra soups or snacks with a long shelf life and keep them in my car. When I see homeless people I give them food. I don't like to give them money becuase I think it often facilitates the things that drive their problems (in other words they use it to buy booze or cigarettes), but yet I am too saddened by their circumstances to simply ignore them and look away. Giving them food won't really help their problems (only social reform can do that, IMO), but it may make them a little more comfortable.
But by writing about that on here, amd I simply sending myself flowers? Maybe I should cancel my gym membership and donate that money to a charity that helps to create social change that will diminish homelessness. Is access to yoga classes self-flowering? Can I go to yoga simply for a work out? Or do I have to do it to find peace? And if I do it just to find peace, where is the line that differentiates true peace seeking and gratuitous peace seeking?
I have a number of narcissistic hobbies. I won't even admit to them in print. But is narcissism really that bad? I thought it was good to love yourself...? Maybe we need to define the difference between narcissism and egoism. Is that where the problem exists?
I feel like this invites the topic of spirituality being a priviledge, which I whole-heartedly disagree with. Although there is some idea that one must first deal with survival (food, shelter, etc) before one can embark on a spiritual path. So perhpas that implies an obligation of those on the spiritual path (or perhaps even simply those who have their basic needs taken care of) to help alleviate suffering at large.
Simone de Beavior addresses this in her short story "The Age of Discretion" when two aging academics deal with their own age and their son's departure from the parents values. The parents must deal with their depleting interest in the world around them, though they continue to desire to work towards reducing suffering in the world. This is the one thing with lasting inspiration in their world.
So, perhaps as we age and gain wisdom, we realize more and more the importance of alleviating suffering and the inconsequentialness of sending oneself flowers. I don't think the characters in Simone's story would be interested in buring scented candles or sending themselves bouquets of flowers.
9 comments:
i heard a comedian talk about giving money to the homeless, they said something to the effect that their friend was complaining that they would just buy alcohol and cigs and the comedian didn't want to tell their friend that's what she was going to do when she got paid. basically the point is, the homeless aren't dictating to us about what we do with our money so why do we get to dictate to them?
we experience the world from only one perspective, our own. is that narcissistic, egotistic, or is just life?
you should read Down and Out in Paris and London by George Orwell, you never know if one of those homeless people will be a great author someday.
Becouse it's *our* money we *give* them. If they work for it and spend it on booze and cigs, it's their choice. But I don't want to subsidize the booze and cig industries through subsidizing someone's habit. I think there is a distinct difference between money given and money earned.
If our parents *give* us money and attempt to dictate to *us* how *we* spend it, we would become indignant. Just a different perspective. I don't give the *homeless* money for the same reason, but it's a thought.
I, however, would rather discuss the *asterisk* phenomenon occurring *here*. It seems like a way to use *air quotes* without using *air quotes*. What gives?
Julia,
in MS Word putting asteriks on either side of a word will bold it. I use it in the same spirit, or sometimes interchange it with the spirit of italics. (I don't know th MS secret code for italics.) Plus it's cool.
But back to the how-one-should-spend-money thing: If a parent knew or suspected their child had an addiction, they likely would abstain from giving their child cash to spend as he or she pleased. Choosing not to give money to someone that would end up spent on something you disapporove of is different than giving someone money and telling them how to spend it.
So many subtleties to distinguish...
very true alegra! i have to admit that i can get caught up in this cycle from time to time. thanks for bringing me back home sometime.
so, uh, apropos of little:
happy belated mother's day
I don't think your attending yoga is the same as "sending yourself flowers". You want peace and flexibility. There isn't anything narcissistic about that.
Post a Comment