Consumption

Flower in a crannied wall,
I pluck you out of the crannies,
I hold you here, root and all, in my hand,
Little flower-but if I could understand
What you are, root and all, and all in all,
I should know what God and man is.

-Tennyson

I think we only consume that which relates to our sense of identity. Our sense of identity is a hungry beast and it needs to be fed. That which does not relate to identity is toxic. May explain the high level of consumption in individualistic cultures.

Regards M.M.

I don’t know what you’re getting at

It seems obvious to me that we’re only consuming the way we do here in the US because it serves to ‘fill a void’ that can never truly be satisfied. Very few implement moderate consumption in all their affairs.

I will make the claim that everyone is consumed by or consumes too much of something. Whether it’s healthy eating habits, money, position, power, religion, sex, drugs, fear, ‘love’. We all contradict the idea of temperance. Please disagree not in speech but in action.

The things that seem the most necessary to our survival,( wife,job,house,god) could at any moment be taken or leave. Now why did we allow ourself to be consumed in turn consuming for control as much as we could this object/idea.

People out of their element or even comfort zone are true objects of entertainment.
Most people- as apart of getting a feeling of control back and entering back into their comfort zone or element they indulge or consume- something, anything to feel like they did before

I don’t know what you’re getting at

It seems obvious to me that we’re only consuming the way we do here in the US because it serves to ‘fill a void’ that can never truly be satisfied. Very few implement moderate consumption in all their affairs.

I will make the claim that everyone is consumed by or consumes too much of something. Whether it’s healthy eating habits, money, position, power, religion, sex, drugs, fear, ‘love’. We all contradict the idea of temperance. Please disagree not in speech but in action.

The things that seem the most necessary to our survival,( wife,job,house,god) could at any moment be taken or leave. Now why did we allow ourself to be consumed in turn consuming for control as much as we could this object/idea.

People out of their element or even comfort zone are true objects of entertainment.
Most people- as apart of getting a feeling of control back and entering back into their comfort zone or element they indulge or consume- something, anything to feel like they did before

Hi Aus10man,

I was not getting at anything. Just saying that we consume only that we our identity relates to. I do not like spicy foods (a personal preference based on what I perceive) and thus I do not consume spicy food. There are many people who identify as a person who likes spicy food and so consume spicy food. Some people like paper thin women and so consume paper thin women. Others feel that only dogs like bones and so they consume women who a larger than a straw.

That which we identify with we consume. That which we don’t identify with we do not consume. The bigger the identity the bigger the consumption (generally through a perceived threat or lack of control). A person with a large sense of identity has a lot to lose and has a lot to control.

I agree with your comments and I feel they do not contradict what I have said. Do you think my words contradict yours?

Regards M.M.

Bringing in “identity” is a bit of a stretch, if all you’re really saying is “people consume what they like.” You don’t need to word it so that it sounds deeper than it really is. I know the desire to try to deepen your post with concepts like “identity” and “metaphysical chemistry” and “dialectics,” but if all you’re saying is “People consume what they like,” it’s much simpler to just leave it like that. Throwing in identity is just trying too hard.

Hi FJ,

I do not think it is just trying too hard. People generally do not like random things.
People generally like things that form part of their identity. This is a concept used in advertising (that works) and to illustrate: Travis from Blink 182.
It is obvious in this scenario that it is not just a matter of what he likes - it is a part of who he is (his identity).

Regards M.M.

I can see that you identify with trying too hard, instead of just speaking plainly. So I’ll leave you to it.

Some feedback would be nice.
In what way did I not put things plainly?
In what way can I change?

If you mean “people consume what they like,” it’s plainer to just say that.

Two statements:
“People’s consumption is based on their sense of identity.”
“People buy what they like.”

They apparently mean the same thing to you. Between the two, which sounds more pretentious? Which seems more likely to be misunderstood?

Everybody agrees that people buy what they like, so saying that would be uncontroversial and not really at all deep, but since you wanted to appear more insightful than that, you chose to word it in the pretentious way. That’s what’s trying too hard.

If you don’t understand how I know that they mean the same thing to you, you gave it away here:

“Identifying as a person who likes spicy food” is the same as “liking spicy food,” so your whole Identity bologna is just a fancier way to say that it’s about what people like.

Thanks for the feedback F.J. and maybe I was trying to sound pretentious.
I will try to take your feedback and edit my posts in the future.
M.M.

Welcome, M.M.,
Indeed hunger describes an important apect of all living beings and demands consumption. As for identity, IMHO, there are two ways of looking at it. 1. You are what you eat gets into the biological necessities of organisms. 2. You are what you wear becomes a human reason for consuming products. In what sense do these types of self-identification really matter?
What of the ideal that identity is based on character, not on relying on superficial trinkets of self-expression sold in the marketplace and advertised as “this is the real you”?

I am what I have i.e. I am what I consume. The consumption of things is to take its perceived or assumed qualities and value into oneself. These jeans are sexy and as a result of owning them I too will be sexy. This car evokes power as I, too, will do when I own it, and this house evokes status as I also will do when I own that, too. If I am not sexy, powerful, or without status my self-esteem is diminished. I am worthless because I own nothing of worth. This is the consumerist, or the individual of the consumerist society.

Ierellus, as always I enjoy your posts, it would be very nice is identity rested on character. If only, if only. We might then be able to organise a less pathological society.

Thank you t & i,

Agree with … I am what I eat
But I also believe… I eat what I am … is valid.

Just thinking here… what if we connect these two together
… I am what I eat I eat what I am
Take out duplication
… I am what I eat what I am
And repeat
… I am what I eat what I am what I eat what I am what I eat what I am

Does it then become an endless psychological process of?
… I am… I eat… I am… I eat…

Does it matter if it begins with consumption (I eat) or with identity (I am)?

And yes, it would be nice to be a consumer of character rather than trinkets.

M.M.

Well, no. The point is being a consumer, in the psychological sense and not just in the everyday sense, is negative. So being a consumer of character is just as damaging as being a consumer of trinkets. I mean, the OP was never about trinkets but about the obsession of consuming others, we can turn others (characters) into consumable objects just as we can an iPhone, the illustration illustrates that in effect.

Is there an alternative?

How is one not to be a possessive lover, a clingy friend, or a suffocating parent? These are all expressions of the consumer, or of the having i mode of existence as opposed to the being mode of existence (E.Fromm).

I was aware of the original context of the OP (made clear with the image)

I can be a consumer of

I do not see consumption as negative (psychologically) but rather as what is being consumed.
In the above it is possessive, clingy, and suffocating that are negative aspects of consumption.

I believe we are what we eat does not only imply negativity. It can also imply a caring lover, independent friend, and distant parenting.

I am interested in the alternative? Please share.

Regards M.M

Well, you’ve already half-conceded your point. To be an independant friend is to not have consumed the friend - you’re independant. Consumption means that you are dependant. And a distant parent, is merely one step away from being “independant” too. But being an independant lover is the difficult one I believe. Yes, you can have consumed them and act as a caring lover but can you let them go also if it came to it? That’s is what independance would require?

So, yes, consumption = dependance.

I’m not sure. Think of Buddhism, to be free from suffering you’d have to be free from craving i.e. to not have the desire to consume.

Hi T,

I guess it depends on what item a person believes they are consuming

Correct, but it means that you have consumed the "independent” part of “independent friend” rather than the “clingy” part of “clingy friend”.

I’m not sure that is the goal of Buddhist psychology. I would assume the goal of Buddhist psychology is to break the links of dependent origination (wheel of becoming). There is a distinction in breaking dependence (becoming independent) and breaking the links of dependant origination (independent of becoming).

Wiki quote alert # 1 (from Ajahn Sucitto):

Wiki quote alert # 2 (about E. Fromm):

And sorry in advance for pulling out the wiki quotes but thanks for the discussion (I am learning a lot).

Regards M.M.

And now we’re led into an inescapable cycle of language, which is unavoidable in this kind of discussion, I guess. The question then would be if there is a difference in being between one who considers themself to be an independant friend and one who is an independant friend. If I am to call myself such, I am entering into the language game, this inescapable cycle, and I am being dependant on this label, whereas, I could just act the way a friend acts towards a friend without introducing any qualitative remarks of the relationship. To be as opposed to talk?

Hi Trevor,

It is not my intention to get caught up on the language game.

The difference in views is that you believe the above and I believe:

I am sexy and so I will buy those jeans, I feel powerful and so I will own that car, I have status and so I will acquire that house.

These appear (to me) as two extremely different philosophies on causation. Do they to you?

In summary the difference is:

1. I will be strong when I take that
2. I am strong and I will take that

Is this a simple play on words?

I am not saying you are incorrect and I am correct - I am saying I have a different view. I have yet to come across a theory of psychology that is universal, that is a law unto all.

Regards M.M.