7Wannabe5-Take 5

[Kriegsspiel]

Jacob will be delighted!

[Jason]

Maybe its best to just post that headless shot and keep things harmonious.

[7Wannabe5]

Continuing dialogue with "Efficiency."

Bullet point 1 in the Introduction: Obligations are Now Gone

Their argument seems to be that it is better to first become financially successful yourself and then make a difference through philanthropy, rather than engaging in work or personal activities that have more directly socially beneficial or altruistic motives towards family, friends or society in general. This argument seems to make sense if you nod along with the math that would render you a multi-millionaire at 35 donating $200,000/year to charity vs. a 22 year old volunteering hours at marginal rate of $20/hr, however, perhaps, there is reason to wonder whether this really makes sense if the greater overall system perspective is engaged.

So, yesterday I was teaching science to groups of 5 year old children in a fairly rough community, and I twice witnessed a child of that age putting another child into a choke hold with serious intent. One of the little girls told me "My Mama said I can say "Son of a bitch" if I wanna." It is clear to me that in accordance with "Efficiency", I should choose to no longer engage in this not very well compensated form of employment, and push the button to submit my resume towards becoming entry level Mortgage Banker while morphing my online business into something more along the lines of dealing in diet pills vs. rare books. IMO, the obvious problem with this line of logic is that since the core definition of life is something like "self-maintenance of boundaries through interaction with environment" , Future Me will also have to live in Future World. I agree that "Put on Your Own Oxygen Mask First" makes good sense, but it begs the questions of "How Big Tank?" vs. "What Do You Do Second?"

I was also recently chatting with my multi-millionaire friend about his foundation. He's a good egg who clearly cares about other humans, and there actually is some fairly direct overlap in his financial giving and the "social work" I choose to do. However, what became abundantly clear to me, while listening to his minor vetching about people asking for contributions for charities that don't conform to 501c, is that the main likely reason why multi-millionaires create foundations is because they can. IOW, governments allow foundations as a means by which wealthy individuals can maintain a fairly significant amount of control over part of their fortune while avoiding taxation. Since you can only own so many pairs of $1400 tennis shoes as an individual, power and control becomes a much more pronounced motivation for wealth preservation and creation past a certain level, which is well below that of my friend. In fact, I would say the crossover point is right around Millionaire Next Door level, based on behaviors of a couple of my exes who roughly met that description, and even a couple of the journals on this forum.

So, given that directly applying life energy to needful work in the moment and planning to indirectly apply financial means in the future are morally equivalent behaviors, which should be preferred at what level?

My own answer for the moment is to somehow attempt to apply more intelligence to the dichotomy, hopefully leading to improvement all around. So, for instance, I decided to set up the new office/first level storage for my business in the extra bedroom of my mother's apartment, since I can't simply offload my share of obligation for her elder care needs. This also places me in closer proximity to my DD27, who will need my assistance moving forward with her autumn wedding plans, and my DS30, for whom I may have to eventually attempt to round up a bride, given his very high level of introversion. I will thus only be intermittently residing with my BF, who now lives on the distant other side of the greater metropolitan area (1.5 hour travel distance), but given that our relationship is inclusive of overt statement of zero obligation, this change should be the opposite of problematic. The site of my urban perma-culture project is almost exactly halfway in between, so I am hoping to enact some sort of round robin friends-and-family CSA this season, with boxes of produce to be delivered by me driving around in my new, used Honda Accord.

I am somewhat burnt out on teaching the cute little monsters, and re-booting my old business, although rewarding, is not as exciting as starting a new business, but I find myself loathe to give up either of these activities completely towards activities more lucrative. I just don't care (give a lukewarm fuck) about selling people pills to reduce their appetite enough that they will never even want to cook in the new kitchen that I helped them pay for with mortgage refinance. Dig the hole. Fill it in. Dig the hole. Fill it in. That's what it seems like to me.

[Mister Imperceptible]

It is hard to know how to best live. The question of teaching cute little monsters. You might teach 100 of them and only actually reach 1 or 2 of them. Does that make it worth it? Taken in aggregate, 7w5 cannot put a dent in the much larger problem of “widespread shitty parenting.” But if someone writes an insightful book on how to teach cute little monsters, someone has to be the field putting those practices to use. Where can 7w5 do the most good? I cannot yet answer that question even for myself.

Another question is whether 7w5 is seriously capable of being a mortgage banker. I can say as an open creative type that fitting into the corporate box for 50-60 hours a week is harmful to my health, and I am struggling for healthy outlets, much to the chagrin of Dr. Fisker, whose forum walls I decorate with my insanity.

Can 7w5 spend hours on paperwork and illustrating the difference between a 15-year-fixed and a 30-year-fixed and selling products she does not believe in? I remember having to desperately take a telemarketing job, selling an idea to someone I had cold called and charmed, and then calling that person in my off hours from my personal number telling them not to buy the product. 7w5 believes in the power of rare books. At least selling diet pills can be picked up off and on, as the need for money presents itself? Are there any “part-time” mortgage banker gigs? And yet, maybe even flighty flaky whimsical 7w5 could benefit just a little from being hammered into a corporate box, at least long enough to gather anecdotes for the Garden Essays.

I can understand seeing the circular problems for what they are, and becoming a Diogenes out of a sense of defeatism. But the Diogeneses of this world are held in contempt, and frequently starve to death, and the world continues to turn without them. And so I would rather be a little bit more like Alexander.

[7Wannabe5]

Taken in aggregate, 7w5 cannot put a dent in the much larger problem of “widespread shitty parenting.” But if someone writes an insightful book on how to teach cute little monsters, someone has to be the field putting those practices to use.

Exactly. One of the worst things about rational secular humanism, as often applied, is the tendency to revert to some form of "What if everybody did it?" That's not how a social system, or any system worthy of the designation, works.

Referring back to "Efficiency", even though most everyone would be in agreement with the first priority stated, which is Health over Wealth, it has to be recognized that in a social setting, there will be many individuals who can't even perform basic care for themselves. I think the percentage of the population for whom this is true at any given moment might be seriously underestimated by those who most often find themselves in the company of other "top performers." For instance, in addition to the cute monsters, I taught one session with severely cognitively impaired children, including two very cute happy little guys with Down's Syndrome. I have taught in many buildings in 6 different districts, pretty much running the full socio-economic gamut, and I would estimate that at least 1% of the population will never be able to care for themselves independently, let alone support themselves financially, let alone achieve financial independence, let alone achieve multi-millionaire status efficiently. This strikes me as being in rough balance with the WSP statement that there is no competition beyond what their advice can provide for an individual until you hit the top 1%. Therefore, even in a world lacking "widespread shitty parenting", somebody will have to be either paid or supported while caring for these individuals who are unable to care for themselves.

selling products she does not believe in?

I am actually better at this than the above might imply. Once I find myself stuck in any context, I usually adjust quite readily. For instance, if the only option in front of me in the moment is to recommend the best of 3 choices of lawn tractor to a customer, I have to either work within those limitations or die of boredom. So, the question is whether I even want to put myself in that harness in the first place.

But the Diogeneses of this world are held in contempt, and frequently starve to death, and the world continues to turn without them. And so I would rather be a little bit more like Alexander.

I would rather be a little bit more like Google-image-search "lady reclining." Maybe I should give up on late life development of my immature, weakazz masculine energy and just get married again.

[Mister Imperceptible]

Maybe I should give up on late life development of my immature, weakazz masculine energy and just get married again.

I fail to see how these are mutually exclusive.

[7Wannabe5]

@MI:

I didn't mean to imply that they were mutually exclusive. It's just that I roughly equate achieving financial independence with "being my own husband", because I was to some not insignificant extent financially supported by both my ex and my "ex", and I can't imagine any man who would like to be financially supported by me, although the notion is rather amusing.

[7Wannabe5]

Maybe this one:




and/or this one:

[7Wannabe5]

Unfortunately, getting married again won't work, because although it is fairly easy to find some man willing to support me in "lady reclining" mode (especially given the need for mid-day naps prevalent in those in my age range) or even "charitable lady" mode, it is more difficult to find one who is willing to support me in non-lucrative* zany project mode (my juvenile masculine energy.) So, I must somehow summon up enough adult masculine energy to adequately maintain boundaries of project space.

*Sometimes I can get support for my projects if I can remotely spin them as lucrative. There is a sad lack of indulgence for pure curiosity in our culture.

[Mister Imperceptible]

Does “non-lucrative” mean “money-pit”?

[7Wannabe5]

Does “non-lucrative” mean “money-pit”?

Well, maybe the occasional "penny-pit." For instance, my urban perma-culture project set me back around $160 in property taxes this year. Usually more a matter of devotion of my time, attention, and maybe a bit of a mess. For instance, the time I got a lithograph machine for free off of Craigslist and it sat in the middle of the living room for a couple years, or all the ropes strung across the dining room to wick water to seedling trays, or the stacks and stacks of books, or the bug collection boxes, etc.

Anyway, it's very unfair for me to blame the men in my life for my inability to maintain boundaries in this realm. They have only been intermittently very grouchy or anti-supportive. I just need to figure out how to make and keep my projects as my top-of-morning-energy priority and then dig in my heels.

[Mister Imperceptible]

I can waste $160 on 2 bad dates buying sushi for ingrates that I never hear from again. I would not think $160 is a problem for a man who respects you and your projects, provided he gives you a kick in the pants when you need it and that you do not cite the tyranny of the patriarchy when he delivers this kick and instead you apologize with kisses and promises of a good faith effort, and then keep your promise.

[7Wannabe5]

I can waste $160 on 2 bad dates buying sushi for ingrates that I never hear from again.

Yeah, known thing that it's less expensive to provide me with full lifestyle support than date some of my peers. This is even true when my peers are willing to throw in 50/50 for recreational expenses in accordance with their druthers. Informal survey of reasonably attractive middle-aged women who are willing to sleep in the back of a van with their BF in sub-freezing weather gets "Yes" vote from me, two other members of this forum, and maybe some opioid addict who's not yet looking too ravaged.

This has been a bit of a problem for me over the years, because hard to split the sometimes subtle difference between "cheap date" and "frugal date", especially given the fact of my tendency towards hyper-sexuality. So, my odd compromise has become that I very rarely initiate or pay for anything. Since the reasonably frugal men I date do have some sort of notion of standard dating expense running in their budget, the fact that I never suggest that we "fly to FITB" for the weekend, results in weird stuff like they insist on paying for my new 8 pack of underwear and two bags of coffee for me to take to my place at Costco.

kick in the pants when you need it

This might be a debatable boundary. I cop to the fact that I am likely a bit of a monkey-princess (spoiled by Daddy and program for gifted children), but some of the men with whom I have been in relationship have exhibited some very intolerable behavior. For instance, my "ex" insisted that the only logical place to park the camper was right on the only spot in the backyard sunny enough for my garden, and he only allowed me 5 short shelves for my books, and he also made me hide a gun in a fake book on one of my shelves, and he wouldn't even let me redecorate the bathroom even though he acknowledged that the budget I suggested was WAAAAAY less than he expected. IOW, it's not as much about money so much as control.

[Mister Imperceptible]

I can see how finding someone able to handle a gifted monkey princess is a two or three sigma happenstance. Regarding where to put the camper, the gun, or the decorations, I have not been able to negotiate the debatable boundaries either. The thought that life could be better is woven indelibly into our hearts and our brains.

[classical_Liberal]

Informal survey of reasonably attractive middle-aged women who are willing to sleep in the back of a van with their BF in sub-freezing weather gets "Yes" vote from me, two other members of this forum, and maybe some opioid addict who's not yet looking too ravaged.

My GF actually did this last week on our way to warmer climate, although it was the back of a Jeep, we had a small heater, and she complained about it a bit... Maybe I should give her more credit?

IOW, it's not as much about money so much as control.

Maybe, but not necessarily control of you, maybe just some control of over a shared domain. Or possibly more about compromise. If you are taking the entire living room with an old lithograph machine, maybe he can reserve the good spot in your yard for a camper?

Wrt to your thoughts on charity, I think this is simply another chapter in the FI debate. When does enough become too much? and can how can having even just enough impact life negatively in other ways? I think the answer really lies in the individual and their innate talents/tenancies. From a pure efficiency standpoint, the logical members in the crowd will always tout, accumulate and donate. The problem is, that's just not within the realm of reality for many.

[7Wannabe5]

No. I am portraying myself as more difficult than I am, and I am not adequately portraying the profound level of disagreeable I attract and tolerate. If you imagine a spectrum of tolerable qualities running from maybe Steve Roberts on one end to Jack Nicholson on the other, almost every man With whom I have been in serious relationship would fall in the zone beyond Jack.

My “ex” was married 4 times before I met him. He drove other women to acts of violence. My current BF’s mother told me she sent him to kindergarten when he was 4 because she couldn’t take it anymore. My ex-husband went AWOL to Colorado and didn’t send me a dime of support for our kids after we broke up.

In my case, assigning myself 50/50 on the break-ups is just evading my issue with terrible shopping.

[Clarice]

My current BF’s mother told me she sent him to kindergarten when he was 4 because she couldn’t take it anymore.

Funny, how different people attract different situations (or it is just luck?). Almost all men I've ever been with had mother's who felt that their perfect boy was too good for any woman in general, and me in particular.

[Mister Imperceptible]

Taking a community college course to meet women seems like a fun idea to gather more materials for short stories. Not sure how it would work for a 32-year-old.

I agree that dating immigrants is much more viable for an American ERE male. Particularly when I was in my twenties, buried in $1xx,xxx of student debt and living with my parents. The pretty blue-eyed girl next door didn’t care for me much if I couldn’t buy her things and give her a landing pad away from her own parents’ house. Immigrants are much more forgiving of these things.

I do not seem to have success with Asian women. Maybe I am not thin enough to their liking. (Actually, I’m not really thin at all.) Neither do I do well with Hispanic women, who seem to put more of a premium on large muscles and designer clothes than any group of women out there- plus they are very clannish. All of the Indian women are married by the time they get off the boat. And while I cannot seem to ingratiate myself to African-American women without submitting to the whole white-people-have-to-hate-themselves-now zeitgeist, I am occasionally a big hit with Caribbean and African women, particularly those from the Commonwealth countries. They are piqued to find that the dorky looking white guy is surprisingly cool. The problem is finding one that is not just after a green card.

[7Wannabe5]

@Clarice:

Yeah, I am a pretty strong believer in sibling relationship theory. People tend to find themselves in long-term relationships that resemble their early life sibling dynamics. So, only children and those with only siblings of their own gender tend towards having some difficulties. I am the eldest of 4 sisters, and almost all my significant relationships have been with a man who grew up sandwiched between at least two sisters. My MIL used to tell a "funny" story about how my ex would come in from playing in the snow with his sister who was just a year older, and wait for her to help him hang up all his clothing My external vibe doesn't match up perfectly with my internal dialogue, so I often give the impression of being the patient, pleasant, polite older sister type who is good at calming down a colicky baby, irascible boy, angry drunk or grumpy old man. In fact, I am good at these tasks, but they do eventually wear me out, if I am unable to touch base with my own sources of replenishment. Teaching inner city children and dealing with my current BF's sound war with his neighbors and my bi-polar elderly mother's inability to care for herself has just been too much for me lately.

@MI:

One thing I would caution is that the very ambitious, hard-working, upwardly mobile type who would be a great support or partner for the accumulation phase of ERE might not be the best partner for the actual retirement phase of ERE. Better to seek somebody who respects your ultimate purpose or truth as opposed to your current strategy.

[Mister Imperceptible]

I know. That is what is so hard. The achievement of my goals seems so improbable that I have a hard time finding a desirable partner who believes in me. So I end up with these dalliances that go nowhere once my purpose and truth is discovered.