graeber stop at enough law
if there wasn’t a natural urge in us to just stop at a certain point.. they wouldn’t have to do that – david graeber
on ads telling us that we need more stuff.. if you think about it..if there wasn’t a natural urge in us to just stop at a certain point.. they wouldn’t have to do that..
if we just naturally wanted more and more they wouldn’t have to make us feel nervous about ourselves to make us need to consume more et al
________
from nika & david wealth p3:
1 min – my old prof marshal sahlins wrote an essay called the original affluential society.. where he developed this idea.. and he said.. the problem w our econ is it’s really religion/theology.. because if you look at h/g society.. yes.. they are rich.. because wealth/affluence is a relationship between what you want/needs/desires.. and the material means to realize that.. if want ie: fried fish.. relax.. adequate clothing.. well h/g’s have that in abundance.. they can get that working 2 hrs a day.. the rest of the time they can enjoy themselves.. so rest of time they can live like rich people.. in their own terms..
2 min – it’s only us who have created societies where there’s things like poverty.. because we created needs that by defn everybody can’t have
huge huge huge
we need to org around legit needs
and the question is .. how that happened.. if you think about it.. a lot of what christianity teaches us is that we have infinite desires.. which probably isn’t true.. right.. but that’s via augustine et al.. ‘this is how we were punished for original sin.. we rebelled against god and therefore our own desires rebel against our own common sense and we just want more and more and more..
garden-enough ness
3 min – so see same thing in all the christian writers.. but even in people like hobbes.. when they start (?ing) sociology.. they always says ‘well people have infinite desire for pleasure’.. why ?.. ‘because they’re miserable.. life is horrible/pain.. so pleasure is our way of forgetting about pain *(laughing but).. we want more and more pleasure.. but in order to guarantee our access to pleasure.. we need property.. so we want wealth and in order to want as much as that as possible.. and only so much stuff.. so we’re always competing over that.. and then in order to gain our access to property of course we want power.. et al.. so that’s why **everybody left to their own devices would just be killing each other and we need a govt to keep everybody in line
*on maté addiction law and cope\ing ness.. and hari rat park law
4 min – but the interesting thing is that for most of human history even though that’s the way philosophers said people acted.. people still didn’t act that way ie: middle ages people had a pretty clear idea what they wanted and when they got it they stopped.. max utility.. most people don’t.. in fact still.. so question is.. what got us to the point that we would act.. to want more and more5 min – some say 1\ religion.. going to hell if not flourishing.. 2\ ads telling us that we need more stuff.. if you think about it.. if there wasn’t a natural urge in us to just stop at a certain point.. they wouldn’t have to do that.. if we just naturally wanted more and more they wouldn’t have to make us feel nervous about ourselves to make us need to consume more et al
if there wasn’t a natural urge in us to just stop at a certain point.. they wouldn’t have to do that
________
garden-enough ness.. we have no idea what legit free people are like.. myth of tragedy and lord et al..
need means to undo our hierarchical listening so we can hear/grok that enough ness.. so we can org around legit needs
ie: a nother way
_________
from david graeber‘s foreword to stone age econ:
4
Sahlins has never been one to shirk from intellectual combat and most of the essays assembled in this volume were written, in one way or another, in response to such Formalist positions. *The “Original Affluent Society” was, of course, a direct challenge to the very notion of “scarce resources.” Scarcity, after all, exists only in relation to felt need. It is hard to find a snow-plow in Brazil, but you can’t really speak of a scarcity of them, any more than you can say public spaces in California suffer from a scarcity of spittoons or the International Space Station is lacking in fishing equipment. This might seem self-evident, but it’s the kind of self-evident truth whose implications most people never seriously consider. Sahlins has spent much of his intellectual life working out the implications. How, he has effectively asked, is it we come to define our world around what we think it lacks, around the degree to which we find it inadequate to the fulfillment of our material desires? Once framed that way there is only one possible answer: there is something wrong with our desires, or at least what we believe our desires to be. (This is actually a further complicating factor: in much of history, even when most people were convinced humans were incorrigible creatures, very few actually acted that way.) Why did we come to abandon Paleolithic affluence and actually create a world in which most of us actually do live lives of scarcity?
*need to org around legit needs.. so we grok graeber stop at enough law et al
have\need ness and the garden-enough ness of org-ing around legit needs
________
________
_______
________
be you. 