A Strategy For Sages to Survive as Travelling Vagrants

[Carl G]

Carl,

1) Where would the sage -- you specifically -- get the 20K with which to produce the $5.55 daily on which to travel and live?

One would have to work for a period of time to save the money. 20K isn’t that hard to save when you’re survival costs are low.

Like if the sage is living with his parents?

2) What would the sage -- you specifically -- do in 5-10 years when inflation reduces the $5.55 to $2.76 (or so)?

One would hope that the gradual increase in the stock portfolio would counter-act the affects of inflation. And a well diversified portfolio should be able to achieve this.

Wait a minute, how does the sage reap the $5.55 per day if his capital is locked up and rolling in the stock market? And with no broker how does the sage keep close tabs on the volatile market in which he is risking his nest egg? How does he trade, and if he is burning up his gains on living, how will his portfolio grow at all?

My strategy is putting a large amount of money into Canadian Real Estate Income Trusts. My reasoning is this – Canadian Real Estate shouldn’t feel the affects of the US slowdown because the country is not of the same size, our dollar is not suffering from inflation to the same degree, and our financial system has many more regulatory checks and bounds established to prevent an occurrence like the sub prime mortgage crisis in the States. That is why I’m putting much of my money in smaller cap income trusts because they have a lot of growth potential, and the growth should counter-act the inflationary affects of the Canadian Dollar. Smaller cap trusts also give a higher dividend yield.

Ah, so the sage does have to submerse himself in Maya. You sound well-versed.

Also , a trend that could affect Canada is China will soon begin to give birth to a middle-class work force, and perhaps even a democracy. And as personal wealth combined with personal freedoms is achieved in China, then you’ll probably see many Chinese people move to smaller populated countries such as Canada, and they will also be pouring new capital into the stock market. And these affects will probably drastically raise the price of many Canadian Stocks, especially real estate. The combination of an inflow of new citizens and new investors could have this affect. However, this is merely speculative.

Ah, the sage may speculate on international politics and economics. I suppose this can't hurt, to become a well-rounded traveling vagrant. May even help, to rub tattered elbows with the money, to bum a meal at a sidewalk bistro in Paris perhaps. Or a can of beans under a bridge in Barcelona, maybe from another sage!

My other speculation for choosing Canadian Real Instate Income Trusts is that in 2011, the Canadian government will drastically change the tax code on Income Trusts to treat them more like corporations than trusts. The affect is that trusts will not be exempt from all the taxes they are now, and therefore they will not be able to give their shareholders the same high dividend yields that are now experienced. However, the government also announced that Real Estate income trusts will be the only trust to be exempt from this law, and so in 2011, you could see millions of trust investors selling off the trusts in the other industries to get on board with real estate income trusts. So anyone that builds up a portfolio of Real Estate Income trusts now could see their portfolio drastically increase in price, if the above speculation is valid.

Good luck! When will you have your portfolio together? When does your ship set sail?

3) What would the sage -- you specifically -- do in 5-10 years when inflation reduces the 20K principal to 10K buying power, and you've been out of the 'rat race' so long that your zero credit rating and ancient work history tends to preclude you buying a vehicle, securing an apartment, and getting a decent job?

Well, my portfolio will primarily be paid in Canadian dollars, which doesn’t have the same degree of inflation as the United States. Canada is a smaller country, population-wise, government wise, budget wise, military-wise. Everything is on a tinier scale in Canada, and so one would expect that the degree of inflation won’t be as intense as in the United States. And as for getting a job in concerned, most employers are understaffed in Canada, and very desperate for new employees so finding work isn't all that difficult. I have never had a problem finding a job when I needed to work, most times employers don't even do a check on your resume, so you could resort to dishonesty about the qualifications if you really needed to, especially if you are just working a low end entry level job. Employers will try anyone because their turn over rates are so high.

Canada sounds like an employees paradise. Here in the U.S. jobs are tight, with lots of competition for anything decent.

In rare instances, I also have a pragmatic skill of being able to adapt to another's personality, and befriend people if I really need a place to stay, or something to eat, it is very easy to get what you need from people if you ask the right way. You just be polite, nice, agreeable, non-confrontational, inquisitive-into their lives, jokey, throw out some relevant small-chat with a bit of theatrics, an interesting story, while avoiding being too philosophical and truthful, and people will love you.

The older one gets the less well this works, I've noticed. Also, the grubbier one is -- i.e. the world on $5.55 per day -- the less well this works.

One could argue that a fool is only capable of foolish social interactions, so why not use that to ones advantage if the situation warrants it? he will never know the difference, he is in affect a fool, and the intelligent man will continue on his marry way.

That is why women are so successful at controlling men. Women are listeners, and because they lack judgment, by listening, they allow a man to enslave himself to his own vanity, egoism, and identifications. Initially, she seems like a slave because she humbly listens, but she is actually an all-powerful master because the man has become addicted to his own vanity, and her face is the only outlet to his expression. She knows this, and she intuitively uses his addiction to her to get what she wants.

Basically, it is like providing a pig with the mud to roll in, and while the pig is rolling around in the mud merrily, the intelligent man simply cuts a piece of bacon off his rump, and continues on his marry way.

Continues on his marry way? Two Freudian slips, in the mud?

[brokenhead]

Ah, so the sage does have to submerse himself in Maya. You sound well-versed.

He's more likely to be submerged in mayo.

[Ryan Rudolph]

Brokenhead,

When re-entering the job market - if you do - you will resort to cheating, as it is so easy to be dishonest with desperate employers:

Yes, but is it rational for an employer to judge you based on if you took 5 years off and traveled abroad as a vagrant? That is irrelevant as to whether or not you have the intelligence to perform some repetitive task. Most Employers have very poor judgment, and so since employers lack judgment, dishonestly is the only sane course.

In such an irrational world, do you think I have a responsibility to be honest with dishonest people? Honesty is very relative, and based on circumstances, it is based on who you are surrounded by.

All this is okay, because you have disdain for those whom you are cheating:

Its not disdain, its more of the fact that stupid people are condemned to a life of stupidity regardless of my behavior, they are going to waste their money and resources on egotistical things, so taking a bit of what they have by asking for it nicely, and playing the friend role doesn’t have any sort of long-term negative consequences.

As I said, I would only resort to such behavior in extreme situations where I’m in a tight spot, but in the big scheme of things, it is quite harmless. No one would ever know the difference. A fool doesn’t know he is a fool.

Here's hoping that some night during your vagrant years, you are out there trudging along a two lane somewhere in the vast, anonymous Canadian tundra, when a semi without headlights tops the hill behind you and careens down to flatten you like a piece of Canadian bacon smothered in ketchup.

Do I sense a little hostility? I’m just talking about a little subtle manipulation to get a meal and a warm bed, not violence.

You see, in an irrational world, sometimes one must resort to irrational actions. For instance: suppose I was traveling by myself, and I ran out of money, but I had the strong dogma that I was going to behave as a sage always, always be absolutely honest, and speak the truth wherever I went, and to whoever I encountered. I would probably be beaten and killed in the first month of my traveling. An honest philosopher is hated by most people, as he invokes violence with his words. He questions everything people are, and aims to destroy a person’s entire identity. Do you think such honesty is practical as a vagrant traveler in a world of incorrigible irrationality?

Such strict adherence to “Be Oneself” is a suicide mission. Being yourself results in tragedy for the sage in herd-unconscious-communities. Just ask Jesus.

[brokenhead]

Do I sense a little hostility? I’m just taking about a little subtle manipulation to get a meal and a warm bed, not violence.

No, I happen to like Canadian bacon.

You see, in an irrational world, sometimes one must resort to irrational actions. For instance: suppose I was traveling by myself, and I ran out of money, but I had the strong dogma that I was going to behave as a sage always, always be absolutely honest, and speak the truth wherever I went, and to whoever I encountered. I would probably be beated, or killed in the first month of my traveling.

Yes, you would be beaten or killed. Becasue you cannot tell the difference between telling the truth and saying the first thing that pops into your head. Some people cannot distinguish being being honest from being boorish.

An honest philosopher is hated by people, and he invokes violence with his words.

Not necessarily true. It would be more correct to say that an honest philosopher is hated and loved by people. He is as likely to evoke the best in people as the worst. It depends on the listener. Christ did say, "Cast not your pearls before swine, lest they turn and render you." Again, anyone can be blunt. A philosopher should know when to be honest and when to shut up.

He questions everything people are, and aims to destroy a person’s entire identity. Do you think such honesty is practical as a vagrant traveler in a world of incorrigible irrationality?

So your solution is to compromise your honesty so you can get by as a vagrant.

Such strict adherence to “Be Oneself” is a suicide mission. Being yourself results in tragedy for the sage in herd-uconscious-communities. Just ask Jesus.

True. What then is the point of your becoming a vagrant?

[Ryan Rudolph]

Carl,

Wait a minute, how does the sage reap the $5.55 per day if his capital is locked up and rolling in the stock market? And with no broker how does the sage keep close tabs on the volatile market in which he is risking his nest egg? How does he trade, and if he is burning up his gains on living, how will his portfolio grow at all?

Okay, let me recap, you invest $20,000, and yield about 10% growth annually, which is about $2000.00 a year. So on a monthly basis, ones brokage account receives the dividend payment as cash deposited directly into your brokage account, which you manage yourself. Your brokage account is tied into your bank account, so you can transfer funds back and forth. $20 000/ 12months = $166/per month or $5.55/day.

Now, your question is: how does your portfolio increase in value if you stop putting new money into it? You basically buy small cap trusts that are undervalued, and have potential for long-term growth. Moreover, How your porfolio grows is based on if the share price increases with time as more investors buy into a trust. As your share price increases, so does your dividend payment.

For instance: suppose you bought stocks at $5/share and it increases to $8/share over a few years, than you are being paid 10% annually on $8/share instead of $5/share. So this increase should counter-act the negative affects of inflation.

More specifically, Suppose you bought 100 shares at $5/share, which is $500, you would make $50 a year off that investment, but if the stock price increases to $8/share, then the same 100 shares would be worth $800 instead of $500, so the dividend yield would increase to $80 per year. That is $30 more in dividend yields, and that is the amount that should counter-act the negative affects of inflation overtime. Moreover, if you bought a solid portfolio of reliable stock, it maybe necessary to travel for all ones life, and never be threatened of losing your dividend yields.

As I said, these income trusts were designed for seniors to supplement their monthly income, as they give monthly dividend payments, whereas stocks with dividends only yield quarterly dividend payments, which sort of stinks if you’re living as a drifting nomad, sleeping in tents and what not because you need money every month. The more frequent the dividend payment, the better it is as far as this idea is concerned.

Good luck! When will you have your portfolio together? When does your ship set sail?

It is just in the experimental stage as we speak, I’m actually not positive it can be pulled off, the experiment could result in a giant failure, and that is why I created the thread to receive input from others who have some economic knowledge, but I have about $4000 invested at the moment, some of which I took from credit cards. But what I’ve learned is that when you first open a credit card in Canada, there is a 6 month grace period, where they only charge you 2-3% annually, so I’m taking advantage of the low interest to invest the credit card companies money, and pay it back before the interest rates increase to the regular rate. Essentially, I’m making 10-12% annually, and the credit card company is only charging me 2-3%. I may do this two or three times with different cards to get a consistent flow of low interest cash to invest. Currently, I’m up to about $33 month off of the investments or $1.1/day… not really enough to live off of. Maybe in India or something. A country where our dollar goes farther.

That’s another thing, in some countries, the Canadian dollar will probably go farther so it maybe more advantageous to research this, and see what “safe” countries one could live more comfortably off of $5/day.

For instance: I remember when I travelled to Cuba for a school trip, and we tipped our waiter about $4/day, he was able to live with very high standards as far as Cuban life is concerned, that is because one Canadian dollar equals about $30 pesos, and food is quite cheap there. Relatively speaking, A Cuban doctor only made about $250 pesos a month, or $8 Canadian dollars a month. As far as my investments are concerned, one could live with standards far above the highest wage in Cuba. Because $ 5.5day equals= $166/month or $4980 pesos/month or $166 pesos/day. It would basically take two days of dividend yields to make more money than a Cuban's doctor's wage for one month.

I would need to have periodic access to a computer though, and it would need to be a country that uses debit, and credit cards.

[Ryan Rudolph]

Brokenhead,

So your solution is to compromise your honesty so you can get by as a vagrant.

I compromise my honestly everyday though, most everyone I encounter in my daily dealings do not truly know me because there is no chance that they will truly know themselves. We all put up masks and mirrors in some relative sense, unless we are truly faced with our intellectual equals, then honesty emerges, but all other dealings are usually compromise.

True. What then is the point of your becoming a vagrant?

to see if it can be done, to test myself, to test my character, to give up some of the comforts that I have been habitualized to, and see how that feels to lose minor attachments, to achieve self-sufficiency by using the economic system to my own advantage, and live like a true minimalist, and maybe if I discover a sound survival strategy, than I will pass on my knowledge to other young males, who may also be looking for a way to be self-sufficient, and not be a slave to a life of greedy insatiable boses, landlords, wives, which manifest themselves in the form of overtime, rent, and toil.

It could prove to be a possible alternative until the humanity grows more rational, and technology continues to remove much of the burden from the world.

As I stated before, I have no beef with labor, and how the economic system works in theory, my beef is with the irrationality of humans cooperating. You know, as corny as this sounds, the depiction of humanity in the future isn’t all that different from the bridge of the Star Trek Enterprise. A hierarchy of intelligent sentience, where each performs his or her own task without any ego, and each adheres to a common value system and morality driven objective. However, we are probably a few centuries away from that sort of advanced workplace, and advanced morality.

[DHodges]

In such an irrational world, do you think I have a responsibility to be honest with dishonest people?

Yes, you do.

[Ryan Rudolph]

Dhodges wrote:

Yes, you do.

Let me put it another way - Should I show respect to a human that unconsciously uses me for his own material gain, a person that is addicted to all sorts of pleasures, a person that values romance, sex, family, and material gain, rather than truth, a person that would borrow money from me with no intention of ever giving it back, a person that is jealous and envious of everything I do, a person with no interest in honesty at all, a person who is neurotically progressing forward in the material world, do you understand?

Being honest with such a human being is impossible in my opinion…

Honesty requires some openness of communication, some common interest. Without that common interest, there is no communication, no honesty, and no relationship. If there is no possibility of a relationship, then how can I be honest? Do you understand how I’m using the word honest, I not just using it in the petty sense of how things are arranged in reality (telling lies), I’m using it in the bigger context of having a real relationship with meaning, and sincerity. A relationship where two thinkers tackle humanities biggest problems inwardly, and outwardly. Really, when it comes down to it, honesty with dishonest people is usually an impossibility anyway. Their psyche receives nothing. It filters out everything, and reverts back to its malfunctioning program.

So does such a life have as much value as an enlightened life, clearly not.

Respect requires honesty, which requires an openness in communication, a common interest, a inquisitive nature, a common morality, a common subjective experience of the world, and so on. I don't define honesty as some petty definition of not telling lies, it encompasses the entire enlightened experience.

[DHodges]

Being honest with such a human being is impossible in my opinion…

It's not impossible. It's just very difficult.

[brokenhead]

Let me put it another way - Should I show respect to a human that unconsciously uses me for his own material gain, a person that is addicted to all sorts of pleasures, a person that values romance, sex, family, and material gain, rather than truth, a person that would borrow money from me with no intention of ever giving it back, a person that is jealous and envious of everything I do, a person with no interest in honesty at all, a person who is neurotically progressing forward in the material world, do you understand?

What do you mean by "show respect"? You should not show disrespect to such a person, or anyone. That doesn't mean you have to show deference to him or be obsequious.

As for the "honesty" thing, the answer is yes, an honest person is always honest, regardless with whom he interacts. You do not necessarily have to be forthcoming - you should know what to volunteer and what not to. But you don't get to be honest just with those people you like.

[Ryan Rudolph]

Brokenhead,

But you don't get to be honest just with those people you like.

But if both parties aren’t fully enlightened, or at least partially enlightened, there is no honesty there in the first place, and there never will be. That is my point.

The relationship will only ever be relative, meaning the most intelligent one will have to be careful not to offend the weaker one. Such compromise does not express true honesty, but it is necessary because some humans are incapable of changing, so being honest to them ends up being cruel, it causes ego-suffering, but they never change.

[Tomas]

Ryan declares:

"And---aside of course from Alex who is obviously in another, superior category---I would say that the five of us probably represent the highest quality thoughts on the forum".

With tremendous humility, Ryan, I flutter down here among my 'peers' to spread the dharma of the Road Home to Zion, and it is not an easy task the Fates have set before me dealing with so many bone-heads, yet I do not complain, and when it happens that one of my patients looks up through the disease and mire and actually says 'Thank you, chief!' as you have, I admit a tear wells up in the corner of my eye! (*Snif snif*) True, I still keep the battered 2x4 next to my laptop, and other heads will feel its merciful, stimulating, liberating blows, yet I did just want to thank you, little chela!

"...IF you cannot see this plain contradiction, you are incorrigibly insane..."

Nice! I am going to use that one!

Okay, Shah, Cory turned out to be one of the super-duped, five fantastic non-ego, high-minded android people on Ryan's Internet Planet International. (the giant, sucking-up sound)

Dan, to his credit, clearly didn't crow about being in such an elite company name as transcending-the-genius plane of the lower class dregs of Genius (Reasoning) Forums.

This forum, in a very strange way, reminds me of a monastary where the priests are keeping an eye on each other when they take a leak. Being sure, of course, to do 'the devil's handshake' a couple/few times before zipping up.

Alex pretty much sums up this thread (with you-know-who's philosophy).


Five Guys In A Tent = Two Canadians and three Aussies.

Yeah Shahrazad, you have a tough, mountain climb ahead of you to reach the pinnacle Ryan has set for himself. A hobo with an income! (Brokenhead)

PS - Be sure to apply for, and the $1,000s it will cost you to receive the proper passports ... but just tell em' that Johnny Appleseed and Cory are your 'character references'... and refer them to Genius Forums for a peek at your thought patterns.

.

[Shahrazad]

Tomas,

Okay, Shah, Cory turned out to be one of the super-duped, five fantastic non-ego, high-minded android people on Ryan's Internet Planet International.

You should've known I wouldn't lie to you.

Yeah Shahrazad, you have a tough, mountain climb ahead of you to reach the pinnacle Ryan has set for himself. A hobo with an income!

He is the epitome of a loser. You have to feel sorry for him. I hope some Canadians find it in themselves to give him their spare change.

-

[Ryan Rudolph]

Shahrazad,

He is the epitome of a loser. You have to feel sorry for him. I hope some Canadians find it in themselves to give him their spare change.

How very feminine, defining a man’s worth by how much money he has, which equals better father material because a wealthy man is someone you prefer to control, and attach yourself to, how very spiritually sick you are! How the animal feminine is the real loser. A loser in god's eyes.

To steal a line from hamlet:
Get thyself to a nunnery!

Honestly though, anyone with a bit of consciousness is thinking of more easier ways that we can survive besides living a 9-5 life of toil. We need self sustaining technologies, minimalist lifestyles, better energy sources, and less people on the planet, then people might only have to work 4 hours a day, or rarely at all. Then how will you measure the worth of a man you feminine demon?

Tomas,

Five Guys In A Tent = Two Canadians and three Aussies.

Yeah Shahrazad, you have a tough, mountain climb ahead of you to reach the pinnacle Ryan has set for himself. A hobo with an income! (Brokenhead)

Mockery doesn’t equal a sound argument. Moreover, You substitute sound reasoning for comedy, and its getting rather old.

And as for all the women mocking my ideals of living as a hobo for awhile, it just shows how petty minded the women on GF are. They can't get passed their materialistic expectations for men. They need men to be financially powerful, and successful in the mainstream world. Their crude and animal conception of morality is one of the root evils in the world, and that is why women lack soul because every judgment is biased according to their need to raise offspring, and use men to that end. Men are only a resource for women, a resource for her to suck the life out of, and transder that energy into the life of her offspring.

How very heartless and devoid of true compassion the world of unconsciousness and femininity is! Having women around actually invigorates me with a bit of passion from time to time...but it is a passion caused by my distaste of their behavior, rather than a passion caused by an attraction to their material outer shell...

[Tomas]

Tomas,

Okay, Shah, Cory turned out to be one of the super-duped, five fantastic non-ego, high-minded android people on Ryan's Internet Planet International.

You should've known I wouldn't lie to you.

Yeah Shahrazad, you have a tough, mountain climb ahead of you to reach the pinnacle Ryan has set for himself. A hobo with an income!

He is the epitome of a loser. You have to feel sorry for him. I hope some Canadians find it in themselves to give him their spare change.

-

He's not quite in the "loser" category, but this vagrant-thread and his assumptions of $5.55 a day is not logical.

But he seems to be one of those who covers every side of his story with an alibi... a coin has two sides but it's the circumference (with etchings) that tends to turn itself inside-out.

Thanks to Carl for exposing the $400 per month that his mom and dad invest in food, the physical food sustenance. Plus, Ryan's late-night kitchen raids for snacks :-/

The girlfriend and I plus our 10-year-old are good for perhaps $1,000 per month, and that is even-that we rarely eat out, but entertain perhaps five times per month.

With that, is some pocket money when I ride with the cops on a shift of theirs. I donate to food banks, homeless shelters, and the people who are obviously homeless not of their doing.

It's just Ryan's bizarre idea that saving a few thousand dollars and travelling the world is realistic... not.

.

[Ryan Rudolph]

Tomas,

It's just Ryan's bizarre idea that saving a few thousand dollars and travelling the world is realistic... not.

I know many people who spent 5-6 months backpacking through much of the entire continent of Europe after university, and they didn’t’ have much money at all. And I wouldn't consider them as resourceful as I am. You would be surprised how little you can survive off of when you’re not paying rent, or keeping a vehicle on the road, or paying house tax, or this or that.

In addition to $5/day, you could work for people as you travel, and do odd jobs here and there under the table provide additional income. It is only a strategy for spending a significant amount of time traveling. In many parts of the world, people survive on less than $5/day, so it’s not that unrealistic. You are living a very mainstream American life, so it might be difficult for you to imagine how it is possible. It wouldn’t be easy, but neither is working in society. Each road have negative aspects to it.

[Shahrazad]

Bastard,

How very feminine, defining a man’s worth by how much money he has, which equals better father material because a wealthy man is someone you prefer to control, and attach yourself to, how very spiritually sick you are! How the animal feminine is the real loser. A loser in god's eyes.

Try again, loser. I do not rely on any man for my material needs, and never have. I raised my children completely by myself, even though legally I could've sued my ex husband for child support money.

And who is speaking of morality? The kid that admitted to being nice to people he doesn't like to get money out of them? You are the scum of the earth, moron. I have never done a thing like that.

Then how will you measure the worth of a man you feminine demon?

The same way I do now: I assess his intelligence, sense of humor, self-esteem, confidence, manliness, values, compassion, just to name a few things. Just for you to get a rough idea: I don't need a man in my life right now, but if I ever decided to let one in, it would be a man like Dan Rowden. He has the qualities I value.

-

[brokenhead]

And I wouldn't consider them as resourceful as I am.

You mean they don't know how to pick someone's pocket and you do.

[Ryan Rudolph]

Shahrazad,

The kid that admitted to being nice to people he doesn't like to get money out of them? You are the scum of the earth, moron. I have never done a thing like that

.

You exaggerate what I said, “I basically said that if you got yourself in a really tight spot when traveling, and you needed a meal, then you could compromise with people you might not normally agree with to as a means to be taken in, and given temporarily food and shelter” It would be an extreme situation.

Brokenhead,

You mean they don't know how to pick someone's pocket and you do.

Resourceful – like finding cheap lodging options, and all the safe havens of the traveler. Some continents are more hospitable than others. For instance: Europe tends to cater to the wandering traveler better than North America.

[Shahrazad]

I heard what you said the first time. It is extremely dishonest behavior, no matter how much you try to justify it.

[Tomas]

.



Tomas,


-tomas - It's just Ryan's bizarre idea that saving a few thousand dollars and travelling the world is realistic... not.




-Ryan-
I know many people who spent 5-6 months backpacking through much of the entire continent of Europe after university, and they didn't have much money at all.

-tomas-
Okay, we're talking the European Union, sure.




-Ryan-
And I wouldn't consider them as resourceful as I am. You would be surprised how little you can survive off of when you're not paying rent, or keeping a vehicle on the road, or paying house tax, or this or that.

-tomas-
Understand. I've been most everywhere with the exception of some of the "minute" temperate nation-states central Africa & South Africa (the nation) and Antarctica (tho have flown over several times).




-Ryan-
In addition to $5/day, you could work for people as you travel, and do odd jobs here and there under the table provide additional income. It is only a strategy for spending a significant amount of time traveling.

-tomas-
Agreed.




-Ryan-
In many parts of the world, people survive on less than $5/day, so it's not that unrealistic.

-tomas-
In that neck of the woods, I'd be carrying an Uzi, switchblade, and a few well-paid, armed guards.




-Ryan-
You are living a very mainstream American life, so it might be difficult for you to imagine how it is possible.

-tomas-
Ryan, I'm in my mid-50s, been most everyplace on this wonderful, blue Earth. Toured the gulags of Russia, China backroads, a VietNam vet, India three times, Europe at least, five times. Places too numerous to mention.

All told, I just asked the girlfriend (of 40+ years), I lived elsewhere about 'eight total years' outside the USA. And I'm not talking on guided tours, I mean the backalley slums of Nowhere's-ville.




-Ryan-
It wouldn't be easy, but neither is working in society.

-tomas-
I volunteer in the worst places of civilization.

There is no mainstream America, you've watched too many Down and Out in Beverly Hills movies.




-Ryan-
Each road have negative aspects to it.

-tomas-
They sure do :-(


.

[sue hindmarsh]

Ryan wrote:

They [women] can't get passed their materialistic expectations for men. They need men to be financially powerful, and successful in the mainstream world. Their crude and animal conception of morality is one of the root evils in the world, and that is why women lack soul because every judgment is biased according to their need to raise offspring, and use men to that end. Men are only a resource for women, a resource for her to suck the life out of, and transder that energy into the life of her offspring.

Children needing care is the cause of “one of the root evils in the world”, AND women’s materialism, AND men’s subjugation by women.

Are you sure about that!?

What about women who decide not to have children, or can't have children? What about 10 year old girls? What about nuns? Since none of these women have children, are they morally superior to those that do? Have they "got passed their material expectations for men"? What about men who take care of their "offspring" - are they also "sucking" the life out of their partners?

Ryan, you were trying to make a point about the nature of the feminine. It really hasn’t come off. The reason it hasn’t can only be because you aren’t clear in your own mind as to what the nature of the feminine is.

--

And as for all the women mocking my ideals of living as a hobo for awhile, it just shows how petty minded the women on GF are.

I notice one or two females have questioned your motives, but so have quite a few males. But it is interesting that you focused on the females. Perhaps this is an example of you finding -

Having women around actually invigorates me with a bit of passion from time to time

- helpful in motivating you towards the hobo-lifestyle. Using women this way is useful if you know what their underlying nature is. But if you do not, the risk of remaining deeply attached to the feminine through this need is highly likely. (Example: Rich Zubaty)

[sue hindmarsh]

Shahrazad wrote:

Then how will you measure the worth of a man…?

The same way I do now: I assess his intelligence, sense of humor, self-esteem, confidence, manliness, values, compassion, just to name a few things. Just for you to get a rough idea: I don't need a man in my life right now, but if I ever decided to let one in, it would be a man like Dan Rowden. He has the qualities I value.

If it isn't too personal, may I ask what would have to change to “let” a man into your life?

And say it was Dan that you chose – wouldn’t his philosophical view of life and women have to change completely before you’d accept him?

[Shahrazad]

Sue,

If it isn't too personal, may I ask what would have to change to “let” a man into your life?

Give up a lot of my independence and peaceful existence, perhaps? And frankly, the costs always seem to far outweigh the benefits where romantic relationships are involved, especially for someone like me. I think it's because of how easy it is to get attached.

And say it was Dan that you chose – wouldn’t his philosophical view of life and women have to change completely before you’d accept him?

I don't see why you would think that Dan's view of life would clash with mine. Because he's a philosopher and I'm not? You'd have to elaborate on why that is a problem. As far as his unflattering view of women, it's only a philosophical view, as you said. In practice, he doesn't dislike women or treat them as inferior beings. He understands women very well, which is very unusual for a male, and allows for great communication. You heard what Dan said to Mikiel about his moral judgments? It's true, and you should know this if you know Dan at all. His judgment of people, and of things, is much more practical than moral. There is no condescension there that I can perceive. Can you?

-

[Alex Jacob]

Hamlet:
I did love you once.

Ophelia:
Indeed, my lord, you made me believe so.

Hamlet:
You should not have believ'd me, for virtue cannot so
inoculate our old stock but we shall relish of it. I lov'd you not.

Ophelia:
I was the more deceiv'd.

Hamlet:
Get thee to a nunn'ry, why woulds't thou be a breeder of
sinners?
_______________________________________________________________

"In this heartbreaking scene, it's hard to tell how much of what Hamlet says is sincere, and how much an act. The critics have never ceased arguing this question. We do know that his mother's recent remarriage has intensified Hamlet's sexual revulsion—he's recently likened the sexual act to tumbling in a sty.

"Here, the prince denies ever having loved Ophelia, right after claiming that he did love her once. This may be just a game Hamlet is playing, but perhaps he means that what seemed like love to him once now seems false and repulsive. Using a horticultural metaphor, he casts doubt on his own motives: the "old stock" (original nature) of man is so corrupt that the grafting of virtue can never wholly eradicate the "relish" (taste) of corruption. In his famous line "Get thee to a nunn'ry," he exhorts Ophelia to put herself away so that she may never breed sinners like Hamlet.

"Specialists in Shakespeare's bawdy language are fond of noting that "nunnery" was common Elizabethan slang for "brothel," and that therefore Hamlet's command is ironic and even more despairing than it seems. The pun would accord with the paradoxical nature of the prince's speech, but there is little evidence elsewhere in the scene that Hamlet intends a double entendre."