Vulpine
Master Don Juan
Wealth is wealth, success is not the same thing.
In my dictionary, published in 1965, "success" is defined as:
Who paid Webster to make it about "wealth" or "fame"? WTF?!!!
So, wait, you can arbitrarily change words' meanings? Well, apparently you can, if you publish the book that folks hold as the authority on such matters. [Bible translation comparisons omitted] I'm a fan of antiquated words and expressions, so for the sake of this discussion, let us focus on the first definition, for it represents the meaning of the word WITHOUT it's bastardization by media and marketing (consumer agenda).
See, I stumbled upon this "disconnect" through peer conversations. It would seem that everyone I would talk to would define "success" as "rich". It made me sick; so I'd argue:
V: "So, if I caught a fish, I wouldn't be a success, because it didn't make me rich?"
Peers: "No."
V: "What if I wanted to eat a fish?"
Peers: "I don't follow."
V: "If I caught a fish, rather than bought a fish, not only would I be a successful fisherman, but potentially a "wealthy" success in the long run for negating the need to spend my money."
Peers: :crazy:
V: "A penny saved... like Ben Franklin said? Most people misunderstand that quote, too."
Friends, family, co-workers, it seemed everyone had this notion that my success, my quality as a person, was to all revolve around money. They would argue someone else's agenda as if it were their own. "That is the way the world works", they'd say. As though somehow "how the world works" is automatically "how I should work". My example of how this is perpetuated is when an aunt of mine went on and on about how "I'll never be successful if I didn't go to college". She proceeded to tell me how disappointed in me she was for my choice. The more she carried on, the more I wanted to resist playing the game that everyone else was playing. She insisted that I follow the same path that she and SoooOOOoo many others followed. I was nauseated, and I'll never forget that interaction. I had so much respect for her intelligence that it came as a bit of a shock when she had nothing but "everyone else" arguments with no value.
I'd imagine a queue of sheep in front of the wolf's cave, waiting to be...
whatever the sheep in front of them was waiting to be...
whatever the sheep in front of them was waiting to be...
Well, the definition of success is being misused, and despite the knowledge that "wealthy" means "rich", not "successful", folks STILL try to tie happiness and money together in their definitions of "success". I only discovered this bastardization after I was pondering my own happiness. See, if you scroll back up to the first definition, the very last synonym is what?
Go ahead...
..."success" at one time was synonymous with "happy". Can you say that the modern definition has anything to do with that emotional state? You may say so now, after reading the original definition, but this is my point. A "positive outcome" such as happiness (if you chose to undertake that as your mission), is a success. I was unhappy because I externally validated myself by other people's expectations and social conventions, despite KNOWING what truly comprises success. I was confused, to be sure, and it kept me playing a virtual reality game. In my mind, I would never be a "success" unless I got the high score at the money game. What's more, it was defeating and oppressive to know what the high scores looked like: Buffet, Gates, etc. I didn't stand a chance!
After I whipped out a dictionary and looked up success a several years ago, something in my mind changed. I realized that trying to get rich with a fiat currency was no different than a video game. The numbers on the high score board would snap back to defaults if you unplugged the game. What are those digital numbers? Bragging rights? They are merely electrical impulses in the screen's pixels, some ink on your bank statement, a measure of something that doesn't matter. So, in congruence with quitting playing video games, I de-prioritized money and prioritized "success".
Another way to look at the issue is by seeing "wealthy" as "being a successful consumer". What do you need money for? To buy "stuff", right? Are you happy buying stuff? What if you eliminated the need to "buy stuff" and started "producing stuff" instead? Could you be a success? More importantly, would you be happier?
Let me tell you, I am a successful gardener, and it feels great: far more rewarding that plunking down chips for some veggies at the supermarket. Spending money leaves one with a feeling of loss: very depressing, especially considering that our society uses "money" as a substitute for "time". As such, we spend our lives on the hamster wheel: going to work to make money so we can pay our bills. It's a closed-loop. Our bills are compromised of things that we could do/make ourselves if we weren't so busy at work, so it's back to work we go.
I can hear the rich people like Merriam Webster now: "The rally cry of the have-not!" Well, I won't be shamed into playing another person's game. I chose "have-not" as a lifestyle: would you believe that I'm happier than now than when I was playing that money game? I have things to show for my efforts besides some numbers. Consider the people jumping off bridges and otherwise killing themselves when the market took a dump in 'o8. Those people were born into a society which has been long brainwashed into believing that money = well being.
Disconnect the two: Wealth and Success. They are not the same. A human only needs food, shelter, and clothing. Thoreau reduced it further to "heat". A person only needs "heat". Food to keep the metabolism going, in certain climes, is the ONLY true need. Believing you "need" pieces of paper or metal discs to be happy is your indication of your "matrix around you". Who gains from my work? Me? Or an employer, corporations, and government? The "looters"? People without jobs get my tax money to feed them and more. How luxurious! Do nothing and get something? Sign me up, right?
"What about women?" you may be asking. Well, again, we have substituted "good provider" with "rich" nowadays. The difference is the same. Providing, without money, is still providing. Can we buy the provisions instead of producing them ourselves? Sure, no doubt, the ends are the same. Though, the lifestyle is not. Again, "successful..." excuse me, "good provider" does not mean "wealthy".
Pursue money, like everyone else, and you'll LIKELY be left with more feelings of loss than gain (and an anti-depressant prescription to deprive you of MORE money, which in turn, gives you more feeling of loss). If money is what you want, go for it, call it your success. If happiness is what you want, then, consider another basis. I, for one, can assure you that it is surprising how easy and rewarding living is if you have all day to do it. Instead of slaving away most of a day in a cubicle so I can make a dollar to pay my electric bill, I spend my day in the woods so I can harvest wood to burn in the winter. In the first scenario, I gain a dollar, only to lose it to the bill. In the second scenario, I gain a pile of cut logs, I gain a pile of split wood, I gain the final stack of wood, AND the exercise without a gym membership. I should also mention the gain of sitting, watching the fire, and being warm: it's a celebration of the other gains! I don't have a slave-master hovering over me with a whip, threatening my dollar lifeline, telling me to cut wood faster, either. I can take a break and listen to the birds sing at my leisure... I can even show up to work drunk, if I want. OSHA doesn't have a damn thing to say about it.
Come up with your OWN agenda, don't just jump on board the bandwagon. It may be tough to use imagination in that way; but, define your OWN success, your outcomes, your goals, and strive to prioritize those over anyone else's.
I refuse to have my value, my self-worth, quantified in dollars, but who am I? *shrug* I have to admit that I, too, am "society".
In my dictionary, published in 1965, "success" is defined as:
As you can see, "money" isn't in there anywhere: the definition of success is, simply, a positive outcome. Note the change in the 1981 Webster New World Dictionary:
Who paid Webster to make it about "wealth" or "fame"? WTF?!!!So, wait, you can arbitrarily change words' meanings? Well, apparently you can, if you publish the book that folks hold as the authority on such matters. [Bible translation comparisons omitted] I'm a fan of antiquated words and expressions, so for the sake of this discussion, let us focus on the first definition, for it represents the meaning of the word WITHOUT it's bastardization by media and marketing (consumer agenda).
See, I stumbled upon this "disconnect" through peer conversations. It would seem that everyone I would talk to would define "success" as "rich". It made me sick; so I'd argue:
V: "So, if I caught a fish, I wouldn't be a success, because it didn't make me rich?"
Peers: "No."
V: "What if I wanted to eat a fish?"
Peers: "I don't follow."
V: "If I caught a fish, rather than bought a fish, not only would I be a successful fisherman, but potentially a "wealthy" success in the long run for negating the need to spend my money."
Peers:
:crazy: V: "A penny saved... like Ben Franklin said? Most people misunderstand that quote, too."
Friends, family, co-workers, it seemed everyone had this notion that my success, my quality as a person, was to all revolve around money. They would argue someone else's agenda as if it were their own. "That is the way the world works", they'd say. As though somehow "how the world works" is automatically "how I should work". My example of how this is perpetuated is when an aunt of mine went on and on about how "I'll never be successful if I didn't go to college". She proceeded to tell me how disappointed in me she was for my choice. The more she carried on, the more I wanted to resist playing the game that everyone else was playing. She insisted that I follow the same path that she and SoooOOOoo many others followed. I was nauseated, and I'll never forget that interaction. I had so much respect for her intelligence that it came as a bit of a shock when she had nothing but "everyone else" arguments with no value.
I'd imagine a queue of sheep in front of the wolf's cave, waiting to be...
whatever the sheep in front of them was waiting to be...
whatever the sheep in front of them was waiting to be...
Well, the definition of success is being misused, and despite the knowledge that "wealthy" means "rich", not "successful", folks STILL try to tie happiness and money together in their definitions of "success". I only discovered this bastardization after I was pondering my own happiness. See, if you scroll back up to the first definition, the very last synonym is what?
Go ahead...
..."success" at one time was synonymous with "happy". Can you say that the modern definition has anything to do with that emotional state? You may say so now, after reading the original definition, but this is my point. A "positive outcome" such as happiness (if you chose to undertake that as your mission), is a success. I was unhappy because I externally validated myself by other people's expectations and social conventions, despite KNOWING what truly comprises success. I was confused, to be sure, and it kept me playing a virtual reality game. In my mind, I would never be a "success" unless I got the high score at the money game. What's more, it was defeating and oppressive to know what the high scores looked like: Buffet, Gates, etc. I didn't stand a chance!
After I whipped out a dictionary and looked up success a several years ago, something in my mind changed. I realized that trying to get rich with a fiat currency was no different than a video game. The numbers on the high score board would snap back to defaults if you unplugged the game. What are those digital numbers? Bragging rights? They are merely electrical impulses in the screen's pixels, some ink on your bank statement, a measure of something that doesn't matter. So, in congruence with quitting playing video games, I de-prioritized money and prioritized "success".
Another way to look at the issue is by seeing "wealthy" as "being a successful consumer". What do you need money for? To buy "stuff", right? Are you happy buying stuff? What if you eliminated the need to "buy stuff" and started "producing stuff" instead? Could you be a success? More importantly, would you be happier?
Let me tell you, I am a successful gardener, and it feels great: far more rewarding that plunking down chips for some veggies at the supermarket. Spending money leaves one with a feeling of loss: very depressing, especially considering that our society uses "money" as a substitute for "time". As such, we spend our lives on the hamster wheel: going to work to make money so we can pay our bills. It's a closed-loop. Our bills are compromised of things that we could do/make ourselves if we weren't so busy at work, so it's back to work we go.
I can hear the rich people like Merriam Webster now: "The rally cry of the have-not!" Well, I won't be shamed into playing another person's game. I chose "have-not" as a lifestyle: would you believe that I'm happier than now than when I was playing that money game? I have things to show for my efforts besides some numbers. Consider the people jumping off bridges and otherwise killing themselves when the market took a dump in 'o8. Those people were born into a society which has been long brainwashed into believing that money = well being.
Disconnect the two: Wealth and Success. They are not the same. A human only needs food, shelter, and clothing. Thoreau reduced it further to "heat". A person only needs "heat". Food to keep the metabolism going, in certain climes, is the ONLY true need. Believing you "need" pieces of paper or metal discs to be happy is your indication of your "matrix around you". Who gains from my work? Me? Or an employer, corporations, and government? The "looters"? People without jobs get my tax money to feed them and more. How luxurious! Do nothing and get something? Sign me up, right?
"What about women?" you may be asking. Well, again, we have substituted "good provider" with "rich" nowadays. The difference is the same. Providing, without money, is still providing. Can we buy the provisions instead of producing them ourselves? Sure, no doubt, the ends are the same. Though, the lifestyle is not. Again, "successful..." excuse me, "good provider" does not mean "wealthy".
Pursue money, like everyone else, and you'll LIKELY be left with more feelings of loss than gain (and an anti-depressant prescription to deprive you of MORE money, which in turn, gives you more feeling of loss). If money is what you want, go for it, call it your success. If happiness is what you want, then, consider another basis. I, for one, can assure you that it is surprising how easy and rewarding living is if you have all day to do it. Instead of slaving away most of a day in a cubicle so I can make a dollar to pay my electric bill, I spend my day in the woods so I can harvest wood to burn in the winter. In the first scenario, I gain a dollar, only to lose it to the bill. In the second scenario, I gain a pile of cut logs, I gain a pile of split wood, I gain the final stack of wood, AND the exercise without a gym membership. I should also mention the gain of sitting, watching the fire, and being warm: it's a celebration of the other gains! I don't have a slave-master hovering over me with a whip, threatening my dollar lifeline, telling me to cut wood faster, either. I can take a break and listen to the birds sing at my leisure... I can even show up to work drunk, if I want. OSHA doesn't have a damn thing to say about it.
Come up with your OWN agenda, don't just jump on board the bandwagon. It may be tough to use imagination in that way; but, define your OWN success, your outcomes, your goals, and strive to prioritize those over anyone else's.
I refuse to have my value, my self-worth, quantified in dollars, but who am I? *shrug* I have to admit that I, too, am "society".
