![Function [F(x)]](http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_DWbW3mDlzWc/SXVI30gmC2I/AAAAAAAAADo/rl-_jtqmMjs/S1600-R/BANNER+V2.JPG)
_time___
_effort__
_money_
_food___
_objects_
_land___
___?____
The exchange of resources* is the hallmark of human social interaction. The concept of 'give' is not generally expressed in the "animal kingdom." Family units always take care of each other but you don't see much trade occurring. The human mind necessitated the concepts of value and gain. Basic animal behaviors dictate self-preservation through the acquisition and protection of resources. Don't go near my food bowl. If all life is occupied with this pursuit you have an essentially smooth system like Earth (sans Humans). It is an animal's instinct to protect what it has: domain, young, food. It is a natural human extension of that instinct to possess and protect what it has gained. With the concept of value in effect you have a grade with which to appraise resources. With worth you are afforded the ability to equate resources. The next step is trade.
In an even more general sense, we can say 'resources' are 'what I have (or hold).' I listed things prior that some people might not consider "resources." Given the working definition they all agree and to discourage redundancy or extraneity, any item must be able to be gained independent of another resource's expense. Effort is a resource? Absolutely. Every person has a finite amount of it, whether mental or physical. It can be donated to another person, or exchanged for another resource. Objects are a tremendous resource of the modern US citizen. Everything from your toothbrush to your car falls in here. Land, of course, is the world's oldest reason for war.
Dispute over values is the source of most human conflict; our resources are the manifestation of our values. And as elevated as we are above our fellow animals, we still like shiny things. That's why the first money systems were based on silver and gold. Clearly we can be touchy about the use of our personal and especially our collective resources. What is the relative value of them? When is time worth more than money? What is the relative value of food? What of our collective resources? If you are a U.S. citizen you have a stake in national resources: money (taxes), effort (most prominently in the form of security through application of police and military). Since we pay taxes, many consider a claim to other connected resources that are debatable as "national".
Consider agriculture: if someone pays taxes that are eventually awarded to a farm, they might care about the methods by which that food is grown (even if they don't eat it). Or security: if their individual contribution is used toward means of international conflict as opposed to local stability, they might take grievance. In these situations they have exchanged one resource for ______? Is their claim to the application of these resources justifiable? What can one do to influence the application of national resources? We have now reached the topic of "the sprawl," which has been addressed[here].
*Here the working definition for 'resource' is anything that 1) is limited in quantity 2) can be transferred/sacrificed from one individual or party to/for another 3) can be equated to another 'resource'.
You bring up many interesting points that I think are vital to the human race. The world would run much more efficiently if an overwhelming part of the population focused large attention on bettering our surroundings and ourselves. I think they are equally important. You must be able to rely on yourself, your mental state, to do anything. With that I think comes the other. The way I see it is you have to first be in touch with the internal to affect any aspect of the external. These exchange of resources you speak of makes me think about each one individually and if any of which hold more regard than the other. I would say no, but I think some involve a greater complexity than others. Take the resource you stated as ‘Effort’—I hold this in very high regard because it doesn’t come so naturally. Effort can sometimes, but not always, involve suffering (various degrees) and for that reason many people don’t adhere to it.
ReplyDeleteSimple living is the key to life I believe. (I’m totally getting off subject but all these things you brought up gets me thinking in all different directions.) But simple isn’t easy and requires all those things you mentioned and beyond. A feat, but one I think people should take more seriously! Not to say I’m a solid example all the time, but I try my damndest. Here’s a nice quote I heard last summer, I wrote it down, I don’t remember whose words they are.. “An interesting plainness is the most difficult and precious thing to achieve.”
Props on the blog. Keep writing.
Thank you for your thoughts, Lindsey. I like "...you have to first be in touch with the internal to affect any aspect of the external." In my experience, beauty comes from within. Whether it's a relationship or your social contribution, you ideally have your proverbial shit together first.
ReplyDeleteThis writing is very nice. As a longtime member, and contributor of the 'workforce', I often backpedal and reflect on my excessive contributions of time, and effort, which could also be called sacrifice. If I start feeling low, and spread thin, it is because I am sacrificing too much of these highly valued resources. That's why I am not on any Boards of Directors, or doing much volunteering these days. You have to learn, and condition yourself to be able to say, 'no'.
ReplyDeleteThank you, Johnny. For me one of the logical extensions of this post is: If people reflected on what their resources are and how they spent them, would their behavior change? Someone like you periodically takes inventory of theirself and adjusts "spending" accordingly. Each of us surely knows someone who does little reflection in this regard, and would surely benefit from more.
ReplyDeleteThe really interesting thing is when you take this and consider it in regard to a person's different levels of resources, like local or national. That begs some questions.
But who am I to inventory my own resources?
ReplyDeleteWho would you have in your stead?
ReplyDeleteDoesn't seem like it could be done by one person alone. I mean if resources are relative to other people, and when I don't think I have anything left to give I can pushed further by outside forces, it seems like you need 'the external' in order to measure or know 'the internal.' ( You express this in "With the concept of value in effect you have a grade with which to appraise resources.")
ReplyDeleteBUT! You also say: "It is a natural human extension of that instinct to possess and protect what it has gained," and in my experience that 'protection' is often a form of hiding resources from yourself, or not recognizing that a certain resource is available to be spent. It takes a really strong desire to achieve/change something to make me dig deeper and see what other resources I have. What I mean is: I think it's a combination of me and others that help me realize any potential that I have stored up in resources.
I think the more interesting part of this post has to do with the idea of a stake in national resources, and for anyone else interested in that I'd recommend Marcel Mauss, who writes about the idea of "The Gift" and the exchanges surrounding it.
Thank you for bringing this up, Lindsay. My greatest challenge when writing this blog is staying on topic, as it were. The subjects chosen are highly expandable although it's preferable for me to be brief and hope the discussion picks up what I didn't.
ReplyDeleteThat being said, I heartily agree with you. None of this could be done by one person alone. I think we gauge our personal resources to determine what we have (or more importantly are willing) to offer the whole. The relative value of these resources is determined by a conversation.
EX: When I was full-time at Whole Foods, I assessed my personal resources of time and effort and concluded that I had enough surplus to do more. I told them I wanted more responsibility, they told me my time and effort were worth $12.50/hr, I agreed and the conversation was over.
In my example I knew what I had to offer but oftentimes, as you said, the value of a personal resource is determined through an active process between fellow members of a system.
In retrospect, I think the sentence "It is a natural extension of that instinct to possess and protect what it has gained," is me preemptively addressing the Eckhart Tolle crowd who might argue that "ownership" is simply the "ego" and should be done away with. If only it were that easy.
This idea of ownership and ego and doing away with has been on my mind a bit lately, I read a little about it in a St. Augustine book, where he basically denies the idea of ownership, and also in this book The Hero With A Thousand Faces, where the author asks "Can the ego destroy itself?"
ReplyDeleteI am glad you seem to know more about it. I will google Eckhart Tolle shortly. Thanks for you blog as a way for me to publicly expose my nerd-dom.
I'm very happy and pleased that this may be an outlet for your nerd-dom. It may very well be for mine as well.
ReplyDelete