Consumption

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.

Might these just not be two different points on the same timeline?

“I am strong” just being the result of “I will be strong when I take that?”

That the identity “I am” is built on a lifetime and society/culture of consumption.

I have problems with the Buddhist solutions to identity without suffering, that is if I’m interpreting them correctly. Only monks and madmen experience a disconnect that amounts to non-attachment. I think Fromm is right on in showing the origins of our disconnect from pure being. According to Damasio (neuroscientist) as our brains evolved, we experienced a “fall” into mind. I thought that back in the 1980s. We have evolved into a need to prove identity by consuming. Biologically, we are all born hungry. The problem of consumption then becomes what do we destroy in order to feel good about being who and what we are?

My cat is a prime example of feral certainty domesticated into uncertainty.

I agree with that aspect and tend to believe that at birth we have a little bit of both instinctual drives. There is a bootstrap of “I want” and a little bit of “I am”. Do you feel the process is in a run-away-state? Are we doomed to destruction? Is it too late? What do we do? Can we survive as individuals in our society without being a part of it (being consumers ourselves)? Are there examples of people who have broken the cycle?

I tend to have problems with everything, but that is only me.

Psychology as a profession must see a lot of positive aspects of Buddhism. Dialectical Behaviour Therapy (DBT) and Acceptance Commitment Therapy (ACT) have taken many of their concepts from Buddhism. There is a lot of evidence based practice suggesting these therapies work well with people who self harm and with those diagnosed with borderline personality disorder.Mindfullness is also used to treat anxiety disorders.

I do not think the purpose is disconnecting resulting in non-attachment. Disconnecting results in detachment. Non-attachment is a way of feeling that opposes attachment. Non-attachment is based on equanimity which is an equally pleasant feeling towards everyone and everything (an unbiased connection rather than disconnection). Attachment is based on finding some things attractive while other things repulsive.

I also like Fromm’s explanation of the fall, “awareness of a disunited human existence is a source of guilt and shame, and the solution to this existential dichotomy is found in the development of one’s uniquely human powers of love and reason”(thank you Trevor as I have never heard of him before).

In both philosophies (Fromm and Buddhism) the point is not to further cause a rift between the self and existence but to unite self and existence. The difference between Buddhism and Fromm is that Buddhism is not a theory (and is not concerned with the origin) but is a method and Fromm has postulated a theory but is not a method.

I feel that this all links back to the O.P. by Trevor. Why are we driven to become consumerists? I do feel it is linked to control and certainty but am having difficulty mentally framing it (a reflection upon me and the way I think).

Trevor, can you please expand on this?

Regards M.M.

Well Fromm would say the examples of people having broken the cycle are the likes of Buddha, Jesus, Eckhart, etc. High standards indeed. Personally, I do not have enough faith in people to believe a fundamental change in the way we live is ever going to happen. It seems, as a race, we are all too eager to destroy ourselves, and our planet. I also don’t believe myself to be capable of complete detachment from my ego, and neither can I help but lust over women (objectify/consume).

That part you quoted was in respect to the inability to fully consume another. The impasse. Pretty similar to what Fromm means regarding the “disunity.” That no matter how intimate or close you may be with another person, you never fully know what is going on with them thus there’s always uncertainty from which we may project our own fears. Consumption usually satisfies, albeit temporarily, this uncertainty, but again, we cannot completely consume another, we cannot unify - at least, not via the consumption route.

While I respect your distinctions concerning Buddhist ideas, I think we are discussing different forms of Buddhism as they exist in Tibet, India and China. For me the idea of life on this planet as sangsaric or as prep for nivana falls into the same Christian problem of looking away from what exists on this planet in favor of some ideal.
As one who comes from a biological perspective, I feel that the answers to such questions as is consumption moral or immoral as an identifier of who and what we are to be secondary consideration of the biological fact of hunger. Place this fact in any individual engaged in society and the motives for attempts to affirm identity appear.
We are born is a given. We matter or we would not have been born. Three human experiences–being, becoming, belonging are questioned only by ego.

Looking around as I pondered this post I watched as: Cars drove past, people sipped their coffees, sport blasted on the plasma screens that hung off the walls, clothing took on a life of its own as it fluttered through the cafe, jewels reflected the traces of sunlight that entered the dimly lit cafe. I look at every possible human experience and think it is all fundamentally rooted in:

The ideal outfit for the prom, the sports team that will evoke my lust for life, the job that will pay well and stimulate, the cafe that serves that perfect espresso that is a subtle blend of flavours (as I take another sip of mine that is now at room temperature). And what I would do to have the partner who remains superficially young but has wisdom, compassion, love, humour , an inner child, and never loses the thirst for adventure.

Once, I was frantically running to catch a bus. I was a few yards away when… the door shut. My immediate response was “No… &#@$%”. I began to play the blame game. My family members spent too long in the shower. The bus driver has the sadistic pleasure of closing doors on people. Where was that old person, who takes so long to board, when you need them? Will I make it to the [size=150]G[/size]ame in time; the Arizona Cardinals will defeat the San Francisco 49’s (I hoped so).

All this is an expression of looking away from what exists on this planet in favor of some ideal. I do it constantly and habitually as I believe the planet exists of things I like or dislike. Do [size=150]“I”[/size] look away from what I dislike in favor of some ideal? If I answer this honestly, it becomes obvious that this tendency I have is not restricted to Christians, Buddhist, Atheist, or fans of the San Francisco 49’s. The fault lies in the biology and not in the belief.

I think the biological fact of hunger is an important consideration but your cat also experiences hunger (as do other creatures). Animal psychologist have conducted much research and I do not think these questions are restricted to those that have acquired advanced language skills.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0P-FuwMDq5s

After thinking and reading about this somewhat, I am starting to understand your view.
… not via the consumption route… ???

I tend to believe it is too late for the human race and have lost a sense of hope and enthusiasm. I once had hope but this has long gone (it was idealism and not hope).

Regards M.M.

My cat has an ego also, but he has no religion. Tao provides the closest set of beliefs one can adhere to in order to be in the here and now of existence.
How is biology at fault? It is beyond good and evil.

At the moment I am creating some alphabet cards for chilhood literacy. The characters need to be a certain font and size. I thought it would be a simple 2 hour job but it has so far taken me 15 hours and I am still not finished. The problem is that at a certain size the font begins to create strange and seemingly random offsets when creating a pdf or printing. The fault here lies with the creator of the software and not with the software itself or with the user.

Thus:
Software = good and evil
User = Ego or Self
Creator = Biology

There are many philosophical discussions that find fault with a creationist deity and so the same logic must apply to biology.

So am I to believe Taoism is good or is it only the personal preference of a individual. Can you convince me of your claim?

All human cultures have religions of some form, they see beauty according to the golden rule in photography, they have language, they have music, they have the expressive arts, they have science, they have philosophy, they have good and evil… and they have morality. Some would argue these are biological tendancies as rocks do not possess these. Do animals also have morality, language, arts, golden rules? Animals may not have religion but this may be because it is a complex conceptual process. Your cat doesnt have science, philosophy, and it certainly does not have Taoism.

Regards M.M.

Could you expand/clarify this?

Yes, the desire to consume is an attitude towards the world, and an attitude born from culture as opposed to some kind of universal human nature. Thus there are alternatives.

Hi Trevor,

but you also said…

This appears as semi-contradictory to me. There are alternatives but you do not believe you are capable. It appears to me to indicate you believe there is no alternative.

I agree, it is a cultural aspect but I also feel it unreasonable to expect a cultural shift without an individual shift. A philosophy of “do as I say and not as I do” does not seem to hold too much weight. If there are alternatives it must be possible for every individual within the culture to achieve these alternatives.

Culture is a synergistic concept in that it equates to something greater than the sum of the individuals. But this does not imply something coming from nothing, it is only implies the collective is greater than the sum of the parts.

If there is an alternative it must be achievable. If it is not achievable then it is not an alternative.

M.M.

Hey MM,

Firstly, just because I might consider myself incapable of achieving something doesn’t mean that the potential isn’t there to do it i.e. with effort. I might consider myself incapable of climbing Mt. Everest which doesn’t equate to me being incapable of climbing Mt. Everest. I would only know once I tried. The same is true of my first quote above which is in regard to having a desire to consume another person, typically, a lover. I may have the bad inclinations to wish to do so resulting in me becoming possessive and suffocating, but the right thing for me to do is to control this desire and not let it dominate my actions. But this would require a leap of faith. Crucially we aren’t in a relationship with a mirror, and we can never be certain that what one feels for you is the same as what you feel for them.

Now, onto the second quote, that was more in repsonse to the public at large and there desires in general i.e. not just pertaining to a lover. I think the kind of change which is required is of such gargantuan proportion that I do not believe people on the whole are capable of performing it. That rather than facing the truth of the fruitlessness of their desires i.e. material consumerism, they would opt to plunge into ecological suicide and the rape and pillaging of other nations to feed their appetites e.g. phoney wars for the sake of oil.

Yes, the blessed individual, isn’t it ironic that the nations of “enlightened individuals” have typically been the ones waging wars and genocide over the last X-amount of years?

Valid point… but this is sort of an Agnostic view of your ability of climbing Mt. Everest (it may or may not be possible).
So the question I ask is… “What is preventing you from trying to climb Mt Everest?”
Is it fear, laziness, … what is it?

I wouldn’t call it ironic at all. I would call it sad. But getting angry about it will not solve anything.

M.M.

No, I claimed Tao is a way of experiencing the here and now dynamics of living on Earth. I said nothing about it being a preference of belief. It is so inasmuch as its adherents find it to be. Further, the reasoning for finding fault in the ground of being, the biophysical, is faulty. It’s analogy, not syllogism. Questions about a prime mover have nothing to do with the fact that something has been moved simply because either stance, support for or denial of, is a belief.