GENIUS FORUMS

Elizabeth wrote:

I believe that women, in general, prefer to have someplace to call home, a sense of permanence, and a place to collect and keep stuff.

A very good description of the Feminine's need to be bounded: that is, she needs things to give her character and definition.

In general, guys don't like "stuff" and would prefer to travel around a lot. ... Men like to not be tied to a spot.

I think it is more the case that, in general, men do need "stuff" to help them stand out from other men. Most of them work very hard to gather as much stuff to them as they can. They do so because they know that women adore stuff, and the man with lots of it has a greater chance of women being attracted to him. Like moths to a flame.

Men who really don't "like stuff" may indeed have some, but they're attachment to it is minimal, and they have no consideration for its 'pulling-power' to attract women.

With this in mind, it would make more sense that women would predominate in the planned communities, and just plan for a lot of short-term stays by men - that may or may not turn into longer stays.

Yes, as long as the men also built on every corner of those communities; shopping malls, churches, supermarkets, cinemas, schools, home-ware stores, fast food chains, banks - along with anything else she may desire to keep her entertained. And threw in half-a-dozen credit cards to keep her happy.

After all that work, you'd sure as hell be expecting a lot when you came back on those "short-term" stays. But no way! - it couldn't be that easy. You'd first be handed 'a-to-do-list' filled with maintenance jobs - and then probably babysitting duties so she and the girls can hit the town to see what other guys are about.

Skipair,

Mate! It just dawned on me that the description you wrote of your life: "live in a tent", "have everything I own in my backpack", "have a two hour bus ride into the city to work (I park cars at an airport)", "eat mostly peanutbutter sandwiches and raw broccoli" - can't be attractive to many, or more likely, any women who knows it. Do you tell them?

You must be able to sweet-talk a leg off a chair!!!

Or, is it more the case, that due to your expenses being "relatively small", you're able to spend up big on the ladies?

And could the "reason" for your addiction to Starbucks food be because that is where you pick-up women? ; )

Sam,

I'm surprised, Ryan has actually given advice I would agree with. Nothing needs changing where there is no motivation to change. Real change is a product of insight, not regimentation

Yeah, but sometimes regimentation and renunciation have their place, there are many paths to the same destination.

For instance: Forming the right daily habits can prevent one from falling into bad ones, as some habits are difficult to shake because the conditioning becomes so strong that one never really feels tired of them, as the body becomes totally dependent.

I call it the substitution method, and it seems to work quite well. For instance: When the body is craving a certain 'daily' addiction, substitute it with a more healthy behavior that the body will eventually become accustomed to as well.

Ryan Rudolph wrote:Take Bush: One thing I realized is that his war could actually result in a functioning democracy in Iraq down the road, it is quite possible. Look at what happened after the Korean War. If the US didn’t get involved there then Kim Jung Il would control both the North and the South. America’s military action in that conflict resulted in quite a bit of good in the region. South Korea enjoys the freedom of a free market open economy with a functioning democracy, while North Korea still lives in the stone age, suffering with one of the worst regimes and living conditions in the world.

This is certainly what Tony Blair was hoping for. You may be right about Korea. Of course, it cost thousands of lives, both American and Korean, and untold billions of dollars, not to mention an ongoing US military presence. And that was, historically, so close to the World War II years that it could be considered an extension of the expanded international presence the war forced the United States to have. You might even make the point that since the US crippled Japan, America had the responsibility of limiting China's expansion in the region. This was the stated goal at the time, and this is in fact what has happened.

The justification for the war in Iraq seems much less clear, even lacking many years of hindsight. What balance of power are we trying to maintain? We have upset it, if nothing else.

The long-term result of the Iraq war looks bleak. The stated goal was the elimination of weapons of mass destruction. There were none. If the long-term results of war can be beneficial, the question is to whom? And we must remember that the long-term results can also be disastrous.

While I understand your point, Ryan, that it is too soon to tell for sure what the outcome of the war in Iraq will be, it is now impossible to tell what the outcome of no war might have been. So we will never be sure. Maybe we are doing the Iraqis a service by reforming their infrastructure. But did they ask us to? What gave us the right? What even gave us the justification?

Looking on the "bright side" of war is worrisome just in principle. It's like saying without slavery, the economy of the south would not have been built. And look how AIDS and internal warfare is decimating Africa. Thanks to slavery, the black races do not now face extinction. Do you see what I mean, Ryan?

Sue Hindmarsh wrote:Mate! It just dawned on me that the description you wrote of your life: "live in a tent", "have everything I own in my backpack", "have a two hour bus ride into the city to work (I park cars at an airport)", "eat mostly peanutbutter sandwiches and raw broccoli" - can't be attractive to many, or more likely, any women who knows it. Do you tell them?

You must be able to sweet-talk a leg off a chair!!!

Or, is it more the case, that due to your expenses being "relatively small", you're able to spend up big on the ladies?

Yeah, it sounds like ol' Skippy doesn't have to worry about having a lot of women troubles in his life, because there aren't likely to be too many of them around for very long.

Brokenhead,

Looking on the "bright side" of war is worrisome just in principle.

Its not the bright side, it is just the truth. Sometimes war can have positive long-term affects such as the overthrowing of an extremist dictator in favor of either a more moderate dictator, or a transitional democracy.

However, the short-term negative affects include the destruction of human life, property, environmental damage, and so on.

Another positive short-affect is that it lowers population levels, which makes life easier for each human being.

You can a come up with a whole host of negative and positive affects of war, but it's not a justification, just an analysis.

However, my personal position is that war is not necessary in a rational world, but we live in an irrational world, so sometimes the free world must crush the odd dictator. However, that doesn’t mean that Iraq was a good decision, and based on great judgment and adequate intelligence. I actually believe that Iraq was Bush’s pipe-dream of remodeling the middle east, but such a fantasy doesn't seem possible as the Arab race tends to have a higher percentage of emotionally unstable megalomaniacs that cling on to religious ideology and primitive traditions, rather than reason. It’s a bad combination.

Ryan Rudolph wrote:Brokenhead,

Looking on the "bright side" of war is worrisome just in principle.

Its not the bright side, it is just the truth. Sometimes war can have positive long-term affects such as the overthrowing of an extremist dictator in favor of either a more moderate dictator, or a transitional democracy.

Especially an extremist dictator who was helped into power by the string pullers in more "democratic" countries, like, say Hitler, or, Saddam Hussein. Part of the permanent war economy the world has been manipulated into for some time now.

Another positive short-affect is that it lowers population levels, which makes life easier for each human being.

Very short term, like, only during the conflict. Soon as the fighting stops you get the baby-boom effect. Not sure war provides any net loss at all, Ryan.

However, my personal position is that war is not necessary in a rational world, but we live in an irrational world, so sometimes the free world must crush the odd dictator.

You, on the other hand, seem to dwell in a naive world, kind of a James Bondian fantasy world where part of the world is free, and the odd dictator bent on world domination must be crushed. Ryan, I bet you even like your martinis shaken not stirred.

However, that doesn’t mean that Iraq was a good decision, and based on great judgment and adequate intelligence. I actually believe that Iraq was Bush’s pipe-dream of remodeling the middle east,

If you think a man who cannot think or verbally put two intelligent sentences together is allowed to call the global shots, you really do have some learning to do.

Ryan,

sam: I'm surprised, Ryan has actually given advice I would agree with. Nothing needs changing where there is no motivation to change. Real change is a product of insight, not regimentation

Ryan: Yeah, but sometimes regimentation and renunciation have their place, there are many paths to the same destination.

If there is motivation for regimentation or renunciation, then go for it. My point is that adhering to some abstract idea ("I should do this, it would be good for me") without the actual motivation behind it ("I want to do this") is pointless.

For instance: Forming the right daily habits can prevent one from falling into bad ones, as some habits are difficult to shake because the conditioning becomes so strong that one never really feels tired of them, as the body becomes totally dependent.

By all means, form good habits. But if you have a bad habit, like smoking, but don't actually want to quit, trying to quit will be a losing proposition.

I call it the substitution method, and it seems to work quite well. For instance: When the body is craving a certain 'daily' addiction, substitute it with a more healthy behavior that the body will eventually become accustomed to as well.

If that's what you want to do, go for it.

Ryan Rudolph wrote:For instance: Forming the right daily habits can prevent one from falling into bad ones, as some habits are difficult to shake because the conditioning becomes so strong that one never really feels tired of them, as the body becomes totally dependent.

I call it the substitution method, and it seems to work quite well. For instance: When the body is craving a certain 'daily' addiction, substitute it with a more healthy behavior that the body will eventually become accustomed to as well.

This is a very good point. I have noticed it in myself. People have said to me that I must have a lot of self-discipline because I get to the gym most days. Nothing could be further from the truth. It is simply a routine. A habit. Once established, it has its own momentum. Now I find it difficult not to go to the gym. The result? I am entirely off blood pressure and cholesterol medication now. I also stopped smoking and I do not drink.

Adding good habits to your routine definitely helps you push the bad ones away.

DHodges wrote:

Backwoods Home magazine is great a great resource for tips on living outside of mainstream society, living cheaply and independantly.

Here in Pennsylvania, there is a long tradition of that, but it is associated with certain religious groups - the Amish and the Quakers in particular. (The Amish of course are much more isolated from mainstream society.)

Claire Wolfe (who writes for Backwoods home) has been focusing lately on the idea that in rural communities, people are actually much more dependant on their neighbors than in urban/suburban settings. Where there are less people, relationships tend to be more personal and direct.

People that have lived in urban/suburban settings all their life would find it hard going if they moved to a rural area without first ensuring they had the skills necessary to live there. And so many people don't have those types of skills because they have grown up depending on one specialist or another to fix them and their possessions. For example, some people I know can’t change a light bulb, fix a leaking tap, find a wall-stud to hang a picture, grow vegetables, build a piece of furniture, etc. Take them out of their present environment, and they’d be lost.

It is lamentable that so many people have let themselves become so dependent on others for all their practical (and emotional) needs. But it is a sign of the times that so many people forgo the effort of being, even in the smallest way, self-reliant.

---

Dave, you wrote a short time back about your idea of moving out of the city and into a more wild setting. Have you made any decisions about that yet?

Sue Hindmarsh wrote:Dave, you wrote a short time back about your idea of moving out of the city and into a more wild setting. Have you made any decisions about that yet?

The decision is made - I am going - but I have not yet made the move. As you say, there is a lot to learn, skills to develop, beforehand. It will probably be several years yet.

DHodges wrote:

Sue Hindmarsh wrote:Dave, you wrote a short time back about your idea of moving out of the city and into a more wild setting. Have you made any decisions about that yet?

The decision is made - I am going - but I have not yet made the move. As you say, there is a lot to learn, skills to develop, beforehand. It will probably be several years yet.

I usually read your posts, Dave, but I must have missed the ones about these plans of yours. The idea is fascinating to me, I have thought about it since I was in college. I went to Cornell, which is set in the Finger Lakes area and has a lot of natural beauty. I really loved the area and even considered building my own house for a while near there. What made me move from the area was lack of job opportunities, plus I had received scholarships to BU and NYU. Are you talking about abandoning your career, or altering it so that you can manage it remotely? I would think physical presence is pretty necessary for a typical actuary, but I really don't know. Where are you considering moving to?

brokenhead wrote:I usually read your posts, Dave, but I must have missed the ones about these plans of yours.

It probably hasn't been directly talked about since Worldly Matters shut down. While it's not directly philosophical, the decision has a lot to do with philosophy (and also politics).

Are you talking about abandoning your career, or altering it so that you can manage it remotely?

Yes, leaving it behind.

I am learning to live independantly - which also means living cheaply, with less interaction with the money economy - and meanwhile saving enough money so that it will hopefully last a good long while. I'll need to own at least a few acres.

Where are you considering moving to?

The Adirondacks is a very strong possibility; the "forever wild" thing is very much in tune with my goals. Staying in Pennsylvania is also a possibility (somewhere in the Appalacians).

I've been working toward this since 1998.

I'm not so sure, Dave, that you have several years, but I guess I read too much scary stuff.

Carl,

You, on the other hand, seem to dwell in a naive world, kind of a James Bondian fantasy world where part of the world is free, and the odd dictator bent on world domination must be crushed. Ryan, I bet you even like your martinis shaken not stirred.

The fact is that most individuals are too emotionally unstable to be in a position of power, such as Saddam Hussein or Kim Jung Il. However, there are also degrees of irrationality that conflict with each other, and have various degrees of negative affects on the world. I also believe that George Bush doesn’t have an adequate emotional intelligence to be in the leadership role that he is. However, even though a George Bush can cause much more suffering on a global scale because his power is more immense, his endeavors are usually in the weakest areas of the world, so he doesn’t directly threaten the spread of democracy, technology, and increased living conditions. He is basically on a idealistic quest to revamp middle-east, and make some money in the process - very naive. On the other hand, many religious extremists reject technology, economic growth, and empirical science/philosophy, in favor of primitive religious ideology and medieval traditions.

Overall, if I had to choose an evil, I would say that George Bush’s ideology is much more hospitable to the survival of wisdom then the lets say the leaders of Iran. But that is not to say that George Bush is good, and Iran is evil. Its not that simple, both forces have their degree of irrationality, as each represents a shade of gray, but not a clear white and black boundary.

...

Iolaus wrote:I'm not so sure, Dave, that you have several years,

Yeah, there is that.

xerox wrote:This thing is not really that much of a problem and its not that difficult to resolve.

Have you resolved it for yourself?

You dont need to work to live.

Not if you've got a way to get on the dole and your conscience doesn't have a problem with it.

It doesnt actually take that much to get a roof over your head and food on the table.

Um, yes it does, for most of us. Those things cost quite a bit these days.

It can be done very simply amongst like minded people

For most of us these are difficult to find. Especially if one wishes to live simply.

who produce whatever (food, goods, services) and trade/barter amongst each other.

This is not easy, I assure you. It amounts to continuous self-motivation and a commitment to group self-governance. This is difficult among family, let alone like-minded individuals.

So l could pack up and move to a nice green pasture, with wooden stands, paddocks, dams and maybe a river or permanent creek/spring. Ahhhh, such an appealing idea.

This bucolic vision is a work-filled one. All of that wonderfulness requires maintenance.

I finally got around to reading this thread. What a trip! The usual stereotypes prevail as to slurs against the character of women in general and the ubiquitous "slavedom" of the egocentric "take" on the whole subject... i.e., the egoc *strategy* for creating a utopian world. The latter is impossible. Ego, as present in (perhaps... show how I might be wrong) all posts here can not create a utopian community. It absolutely requires spiritual awakening, at least in the founder/leader(s) of such a community.
(Remember, I mean to not be mean for its own sake but radically honest. It is my credo. It will not change.)

A very brief history of the Center for Conscious Unity:
After my awakening (honestly, remember!) I was a drifter for several years. It was easy with my masonry skills to "make a living" and pay the rent and hold meditation circles in my little mobile sanctuary I would set up on all the several properties where I rented.
My first wife "got the farm" where we raised our three sons. I was off in Hawaii getting enlightened and had no interest at all in my share of the 12 acre farm... (it had always been 50/50 % ownership during our 25 yrs of marriage... but, no matter... I didn't care, and I knew she would take it all while I was *away.* She did.)

So along about '98, a guy in a wheelchair shows up at one of my little meditation circles with dialogue after. He too had experienced a total breakthrough from ego into selflessness, and he knew firsthand that I was speaking as a local manifestation of cosmic consciousness.
He had been disabled by a mototcycle wreck due to a fault in the bike's kick-stand (It droipped and threw him at high speed)... and the bike company gave him a generous settlement. With it he bought the 80 acres of our land trust.
In '99, he "made me" "First Trustee" of the trust, knowing that I was liberated from ego and having read my several essays on intentional community. (I had also facilitated several seminars on the above here in Eugene over the years, and he was familiar with my leadedrship in that realm.) It was a natural symbiosis. I am a builder and he is another genius, and we work well together.

We are finally getting around to community gardening. ( I Just built the deer fence and raised beds this spring.)
We now have three women in separate dwellings ("Pacific Yurts"... excellent and very inexpensive dwellings), the above benefactor in his double-wide and me in my 30 foot diameter yurt (the "Center") near the top of the hill... with a 40 mile view in all directions.

You all know what I teach. My brother, the benefactor, already knows what ego-transcendence is (and lives it most of the time.) The others are learning, even tho they are just lowely women!! (This place just kills me with the anti-women bigotry bias!! Like... with the humor of it.)
My wife lives in Eugene. We "visit" when I come to town.... And I use her wireless computer connection. Her name is Sybil. She lives up to it. We were married (in '00) after nearly two years of living as above apart but "visiting." We both have "a life", not dependent on each other. She is a *very wise* (and loving ) woman. She has enjoyed a few chuckles reading the "masculine philosophy" which is the forum dogma here. (Just on very special occassions when the absurdity of it is irresistably ridiculous... and good for a hearty laugh.)

Well that's my contribution to the "slavedom" of the egocentric perspective on community here... the required egoic strategy and all.
Again, slavedom is the the state of egoic ignorance. Awakening is liberation. Liberation manifests the ideals of community shared by those who are selfless. Those who remain selfish continue on the treadmill of slavery. They just don't know any better.

mikiel

mikiel wrote:So along about '98, a guy in a wheelchair shows up at one of my little meditation circles with dialogue after. He too had experienced a total breakthrough from ego into selflessness, and he knew firsthand that I was speaking as a local manifestation of cosmic consciousness.
He had been disabled by a mototcycle wreck due to a fault in the bike's kick-stand (It droipped and threw him at high speed)... and the bike company gave him a generous settlement. With it he bought the 80 acres of our land trust.

Ah, the Great Mikiel shows us the way of the Selfless One. His magical solution against slavedom includes suing a company after having suffered damages in American Style, meaning a type of settlement the rest of the world finds insane.

I am a builder and he is another genius, and we work well together.

But as a wheelchair guy with a moderate bag of money he naturally needed a builder to make the most of it and manage the estate for all practical purposes. How handy to find a flipped out stonemason basically looking to be taken for a ride.

Where's the selflessness here, Mikiel? It seems all pretty convenient and I can hardly blame him. It's just another version of finding a bitch to pull the load and you and your benefactor doing basically the same thing under the cover of such beautiful sentiments.

We now have three women in separate dwellings ("Pacific Yurts"... excellent and very inexpensive dwellings), the above benefactor in his double-wide and me in my 30 foot diameter yurt (the "Center") near the top of the hill... with a 40 mile view in all directions.

You all know what I teach. My brother, the benefactor, already knows what ego-transcendence is (and lives it most of the time.) The others are learning, even tho they are just lowely women!!

Ah yeah, those lowely women... at least this forum's anti-women bias is a conscious one and has a remarkable female population considering everything. No matter how lowely or lovely they are, one likes to think at least here one has largely gone beyond that.

Well that's my contribution to the "slavedom" of the egocentric perspective on community here... the required egoic strategy and all.

Compared to most of the other suggestions here your suggestions have been quite, what's the word: lowely. Like having to sue companies and/or marrying someone with a large farm so we can be spiritually at peace on our acres of playground for the ego. Harem included!

The useful part of your contribution was about your masonry skills to "make a living" and pay the rent and your "mobile sanctuary". This sounds way more humble, unattached and therefore interesting. I wonder why you ever decided something additional was needed for you, Pacific Yurts and stuff.

Diebert,

mikiel: So along about '98, a guy in a wheelchair shows up at one of my little meditation circles with dialogue after. He too had experienced a total breakthrough from ego into selflessness, and he knew firsthand that I was speaking as a local manifestation of cosmic consciousness.

He had been disabled by a mototcycle wreck due to a fault in the bike's kick-stand (It droipped and threw him at high speed)... and the bike company gave him a generous settlement. With it he bought the 80 acres of our land trust.

Diebert: Ah, the Great Mikiel shows us the way of the Selfless One. His magical solution against slavedom includes suing a company after having suffered damages in American Style, meaning a type of settlement the rest of the world finds insane.

I think your sarcasm is unwarranted here. Firstly, it wasn't mikiel who sued. Secondly, the company's product was responsible for someone being paralyzed. You really think selling a defective product that disables someone warrants no compensation?

mikiel: I am a builder and he is another genius, and we work well together.

Diebert: But as a wheelchair guy with a moderate bag of money he naturally needed a builder to make the most of it and manage the estate for all practical purposes. How handy to find a flipped out stonemason basically looking to be taken for a ride.

Why do you read in the most cynical motive? What has mikiel done to warrant that kind of projection on your part?

Where's the selflessness here, Mikiel? It seems all pretty convenient and I can hardly blame him. It's just another version of finding a bitch to pull the load and you and your benefactor doing basically the same thing under the cover of such beautiful sentiments.

Again, your cyncism is doing all the projecting. Why the need to do that?

mikiel: We now have three women in separate dwellings ("Pacific Yurts"... excellent and very inexpensive dwellings), the above benefactor in his double-wide and me in my 30 foot diameter yurt (the "Center") near the top of the hill... with a 40 mile view in all directions.

You all know what I teach. My brother, the benefactor, already knows what ego-transcendence is (and lives it most of the time.) The others are learning, even tho they are just lowly women!!

Diebert: Ah yeah, those lowly women... at least this forum's anti-women bias is a conscious one ...

Does that excuse it?

... No matter how lowly or lovely they are, one likes to think at least here one has largely gone beyond that.

Actually, just the opposite seems to be the case, your deference to the authorities here notwithstanding.

mikiel: Well that's my contribution to the "slavedom" of the egocentric perspective on community here... the required egoic strategy and all.

Diebert: Compared to most of the other suggestions here your suggestions have been quite, what's the word: lowely. Like having to sue companies and/or marrying someone with a large farm so we can be spiritually at peace on our acres of playground for the ego. Harem included!

Jeez, get a grip. What is your beef with mikiel that you have to inject this kind of venom into the conversation?

Hi Sam, you seem to be puzzled by my harsh approach. No surprise.

samadhi wrote:I think your sarcasm is unwarranted here. Firstly, it wasn't mikiel who sued.

I wasn't being sarcastic at all. This discussion is about finding ways to escape the slavery of undesired jobs and related sticking to a location and Mikiel tells how he got helped by money coming from a legal settlement. From that point on it doesn't really matter who was suing who, or if is there was any law involved at all. It's the larger point: before this event Mikiel was working as a traveling stone mason, but after teaming up with someone with money he got to do other things, building his vision, etc. And this he implies is some kind of selfless solution superior to all the "egoic strategies" posted in this thread?

Wouldn't you agree I've been awfully nice and patient here? Actually I'm probably the nicest person on Earth.

Secondly, the company's product was responsible for someone being paralyzed. You really think selling a defective product that disables someone warrants no compensation?

Sure, it just doesn't have anything to do with the topic. How would this trivial stuff give any clue on living somewhere cheap and being less reliant on doing work one doesn't want to do?

If he'd have said that nature provides and gives opportunities out of the blue sky if we're attentive enough - it would have been a different story altogether.

Why do you read in the most cynical motive? What has mikiel done to warrant that kind of projection on your part?

In my view he writes like a child, spiritually, mentally. It's pretty obvious he's oblivious to his own motives that stand out like a sour thumb. You might not come out much but the dynamics of Mikiel's story I've seen too often. It doesn't take a Sherlock Holmes to draw such conclusions.

I do appreciate your referral to the cynic, like Diogenes said: "other dogs bite their enemies, I bite my friends to save them".

In the whole history of my posting here I only bite people I really like for some reason. I mostly ignore the ones I haven't anything in common with - or the ones I agree with.

Diebert: Ah yeah, those lowly women... at least this forum's anti-women bias is a conscious one ...

Does that excuse it?

Never! Only unconsciousness can be excused.

Diebert,

sam: I think your sarcasm is unwarranted here. Firstly, it wasn't mikiel who sued.

Diebert: I wasn't being sarcastic at all. This discussion is about finding ways to escape the slavery of undesired jobs and related sticking to a location and Mikiel tells how he got helped by money coming from a legal settlement. From that point on it doesn't really matter who was suing who, or if is there was any law involved at all. It's the larger point: before this event Mikiel was working as a traveling stone mason, but after teaming up with someone with money he got to do other things, building his vision, etc. And this he implies is some kind of selfless solution superior to all the "egoic strategies" posted in this thread?

I don't see a problem with him talking about his experience. He never said that suing someone is the way to become self-supporting which is what you are implying. He was just giving us some background on his center. Cut him some slack.

Wouldn't you agree I've been awfully nice and patient here?

No, you haven't, just the opposite in fact.

sam: Secondly, the company's product was responsible for someone being paralyzed. You really think selling a defective product that disables someone warrants no compensation?

Diebert: Sure, it just doesn't have anything to do with the topic. How would this trivial stuff give any clue on living somewhere cheap and being less reliant on doing work one doesn't want to do?

Who said his point was to describe how to become less reliant on doing work or living somewhere cheap? That's your strawman. He was describing his situation, he never said it is the best or only way to do it. It was his way, that's all.

If he'd have said that nature provides and gives opportunities out of the blue sky if we're attentive enough - it would have been a different story altogether.

Well, hooking up with his benefactor certainly was an opportunity out of the blue. The idea I got was, "pay attention and things will happen," not "look for someone with cash to set you up."

sam: Why do you read in the most cynical motive? What has mikiel done to warrant that kind of projection on your part?

Diebert: In my view he writes like a child, spiritually, mentally.

You don't have to like his style. But ascribing cynical motives to him has more to do with you than him.

It's pretty obvious he's oblivious to his own motives that stand out like a sour thumb.

Sour thumb? What ARE his motives since you seem to believe you have a pipeline to his brain? And why should we believe you and not him?

You might not come out much but the dynamics of Mikiel's story I've seen too often. It doesn't take a Sherlock Holmes to draw such conclusions.

Now you want to make it my problem? No, I don't come to your conclusions. Why not give us your evidence instead of your opinions?

I do appreciate your referral to the cynic, like Diogenes said: "other dogs bite their enemies, I bite my friends to save them".

Oh, I see, you were really being friendly. Do you always insult people you are trying to befriend?

In the whole history of my posting here I only bite people I really like for some reason. I mostly ignore the ones I haven't anything in common with - or the ones I agree with.

Fine. I just found your post to be an assault and battery without provocation.

samadhi wrote:]I don't see a problem with him talking about his experience. He never said that suing someone is the way to become self-supporting which is what you are implying. He was just giving us some background on his center.

But what you get when you boil down the post is exactly what I described. The favor I've done him, and you, is to show how to cut away the fluff and see the underlying harsh logic in the eye, no matter how ugly it might appear.

Wouldn't you agree I've been awfully nice and patient here?

No, you haven't, just the opposite in fact.

The fact I still talk to you is an act beyond generosity. It's like going to San Quentin prison with a bucket of roses to visit Level 4.

Who said his point was to describe how to become less reliant on doing work or living somewhere cheap? That's your strawman. He was describing his situation, he never said it is the best or only way to do it. It was his way, that's all.

It's the topic of this thread, mate. If he indeed just described his history - the fact is he didn't.

He explicitly judged a perceived 'ego' in all posts in the thread, thereby suggesting his posts wouldn't contain it. He concluded all of the made suggestions would be 'impossible'. He added a few slurs about things here being absurd and ridiculous just after judging the above posts to be slurs.

All this sets the stage for the description of his situation to somehow solidify the above points but it didn't. Now you come here defending him, to weasel about his not literary claiming his point would be relevant to the discussion. Nice job, Sam. Inmates always stick up for their own kind!

Well, hooking up with his benefactor certainly was an opportunity out of the blue. The idea I got was, "pay attention and things will happen," not "look for someone with cash to set you up."

The question remains: where's the selfless aspect exactly? Where does it contradict any of the posts that went before him? It's not me setting up that expectation, it was Mikiel.

You don't have to like his style. But ascribing cynical motives to him has more to do with you than him.

Actually I didn't do that. You really are a lousy reader. The point was about when one would strip away all the Christmas decoration, what was left was the hooking up with someone who got money, or a farm. This contains no judgment, I invite Mikiel, and you, to name things as they are.

If I was in situation I'd probably do something similar. I just wouldn't call it selfless or spiritually superior to other suggestions made in this thread. We're still talking about business, Mammon, the whole materialistic dynamic. Of course there are motives but let them be naked.

Why not give us your evidence instead of your opinions?

Are you requiring me to prove a negative? I've challenged Mikiel's apparent lack of honesty, hiding of motives and lack of substance ('evidence') in his post. It's up to him to provide more clarity but I see no reason for him to do so. The pipeline told me :)

Do you always insult people you are trying to befriend?

If only they would feel insulted! Then there's hope they might start to think why they feel that way. I'm sure Mikiel would understand with his admitted 'rude boy' persona.

Better to see it as probing, sharp instruments to get to the bottom of more often than not intuited shadow spots. No point in doing that with people who live completely in the shadow.

Fine. I just found your post to be an assault and battery without provocation.

So sue me!

Kevin: I think the cheap living in remote areas can work without having to resort to overly organized communities/cults. A simple "estate", shall we call it, with 500 residences, would be large enough to have its own local store, and run a regular shuttle bus for commuters.

That’s called a satellite township, and they are springing up like mushrooms in the “second” world countries like China, Malaysia, India, etc., and stay in contact with the rest of the country/world through satellite communications, although relatively isolated like a satellite, hence the name. However, they would still need supplies for the local convenient store delivered from elsewhere, otherwise it would be quite inconvenient for the locals to keep it stocked.