Pursuing Happiness

[chefranden]

...We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness...

 

I have been re-reading Howard Zinn's "The Peoples History of the United States" I'm just up to the revolution and have re-acquainted myself with the probability that the above was largely written by the haves as propaganda and self justification. Self justification in that wealthy colonists wanted to be able to exploit the resources of the land with out interference from Britain. Propaganda in that the working classes, servants, and slaves had no real interest in changing masters. It was six of one and a half dozen of another as far as they were concerned. They had to be convinced that they had a stake without actually giving them a stake. The upper-crust colonists had set themselves the dicey task of riling the masses against Britain without riling the masses against themselves.

 

"The People" according to Locke, were the middle class -- "the manufacturer, the yeoman, the merchant, the country gentleman..." (Zinn p74) This then was the sort of thing that Jefferson and his editors had in mind, but they didn't go to any pains to qualify this as the Declaration was published across the land.

 

Knowing this historic fact would be a mute point except that the dichotomy between what the words appear to say and how they are carried out in practice hasn't changed much since the revolution. As it was written and is still the ideal:

 

"In our dream, we have limitless resources, and the people yield themselves with perfect docility to our molding hand. The present educational conventions fade from our minds; and, unhampered by tradition, we work our own good will upon a grateful and responsive folk. We shall not try to make these people or any of their children into philosophers or men of learning or science. We are not to raise up from among them authors, orators, poets, or men of letters. We shall not search for embryo great artists, painters, musicians. Nor will we cherish even the humbler ambition to raise up from among them lawyers, doctors, preachers, politicians, statesmen, of whom we now have ample supply."

 

-Rockefeller Foundation Director of Charity, Frederick Gates, 1913

 

 

Although women and other than whites can now be middle class it is still the fact that only middle class people have a place in the starting bunch in the pursuit of happiness marathon. This is a truth that is not supposed to be mentioned in polite society. To do so underlines the truth that the poor are not poor because of defect of character, but rather defect of birth (position in the start of the race). Much is made of those that manage to go from rags to riches in spite of the roadblocks put before them. These lucky few are supposed to be the exception that proves the rule that anybody can make it to the street where Bill Gates* lives. Anybody can win the lotto too, however not very many will, not for the defect of not buying a ticket, but for the fact that winning tickets are few and designed to be few.

 

 

*I'm using poor Bill metaphorically here.

[Legion]

I don't understand why money and happiness seem to be so linked in your mind Chef. I have never been overly interested in having wealth. And I don't have it. If I were to pursue wealth with the idea that it would bring me happiness, I think that I would be very disappointed.

[Amethyst]

I would say they belong to everyone but in this day and age, they only belong to the rich.

[R. S. Martin]

Chef, I like what you are saying. You don't speak like an American but like one who is looking on from the outside. It's pretty amazing when someone can see themselves and their country from the outside like that.

 

Your quote from the Rockefeller people is...abhorable. Not to look for and develop talent--I have never seen or heard of such deplorable passiveness toward education and child development. However, it goes with the Scottish Common Sense Realism Philosophy of "self-evident truths" in the first quote re pursuit of happiness. I guess that is what Mark Noll meant when he said the US Constitution was built on Scottish Common Sense philosophy.

 

I forget what he says Canada's main foundation is but instead of life, liberty, and happiness, it's something along the lines of law, order and responsible government. Or did I get this from another author; I forget.

 

What I was getting at was Common Sense philosophy was very much into trusting your senses, sticking to the simple common sensical rules of life accessible to the common person. I read up on it in an effort to understand fundamentalist religion, esp. Charles Hodge, with whom you may be familiar. I understand this philosophy developed in reaction to skeptical philosophies such as David Hume and Voltaire. I didn't read Voltaire but I read a tiny bit of Hume. He pointed out that two people can have the same experience but one remembers more detail than the other. To me, this said he recognizes individual differences in people. Hodge had everyone identical like we were all cut from the same cookie cutter. Hume also said we won't ever know how sense perception works. Hodge denied this outright. Hodge was a thorough-going Common Sense guy. He prided himself in never developing a new idea.

 

Sounds like the Rockefeller people. Keep people down in the trenches where they belong; make sure none ever rise above their station. All we need is cogs in the wheel.

 

QUESTION: Who is in a position to make these decisions?

 

In Hodge's case, God and the Bible. Hodge, however, presumed to speak for God and interpret the Bible. He had no scruples in taking it upon himself and colleagues to decide that God and Bible were in dire need of his human defense against skeptics with his life if need be. According to Ernest R. Sandeen, Hodge and colleagues vowed to defend God and the Bible with their lives or die in the attempt.

 

I don't get that kind of attitude toward an almighty ruler of the universe who can allegedly strike dead on the spot anyone who disobeys him. I think it speaks of a mighty shaky faith.

 

Sorry, I got sidetracked here. My point is that this is the same philosophy that the American Constitution is built on. And I can see the similarities. This philosophy has led to so much utter and absolute unhappiness for me in my life that I totally fail to see how it can possibly lead to happiness for anyone except the haves. The Old Order Mennonite community operates very much by the Common Sense philosophy and it works very well for people who fit in and are successful money-wise--perhaps equivilent of the middle class for your example. For all others, in my observation, it's varying degrees of a living death--and they are trapped there. Thus, I agree with the point you're making.

[Robbobrob]

As George Carlin pointed out, if someone can take it away (at the point of a gun) it is not a right.

 

Since that would include our very lives, there really are no rights for anyone.....only levels of priviledge depending on strength (or wealth to by strength).

[chefranden]

I don't understand why money and happiness seem to be so linked in your mind Chef. I have never been overly interested in having wealth. And I don't have it. If I were to pursue wealth with the idea that it would bring me happiness, I think that I would be very disappointed.

 

Except for a couple years in Amway, I've never pursued wealth either. Even then my reason for wanting to make a killing was so that I'd get making a living over with and wouldn't have to bother with it anymore. I don't find money very interesting when there is enough to buy food and shelter. In those times of my life when there wasn't enough food and shelter money was very interesting in the Chinese sense of "may you live in interesting times."

 

As I understand it the pursuit of happiness is not about "happy, happy, joy, joy, but rather to be in charge of what happens. At its core happiness is having enough beans today and being pretty sure that there will be enough beans tomorrow. I've read somewhere that once people reach a level of living that provides pretty good security for raising children that adding to material wealth beyond that doesn't add much to happiness. Again I'm thinking of happiness as having a handle on what happens.

 

At this point in time, money has gone beyond merely being a technology that facilitates trade. Money is permission to have a handle on what happens to you and yours. When you have a lot of it you not only have permission to effect what happens to you and yours you have permission to effect what happens to others for good or ill.

 

A person needs certain resources to live without suffering physically and mentally. A person cannot just go out and collect those resources like we evolved to do. (Have you ever heard of an unemployed bear?) Restricted access to resources is least part of what it means to be civilized. I kind of think it is most of civilization means, but that's another thread. Money is access to needed resources and the less money you have the less access you have and the more you are subject to control of people that have lots of access. Right now Corporatacracy is working hard to control access to water (privatization). Once they manage this, and I think they will all things staying equal, they will really have us over a barrel. Global corporations own or control the shelter, they own the food, they will soon own the water, after that I imagine they will own the air*. Try being happy without these things and you will understand how money and happiness are linked.

 

*you probably feel that this is just silly, but you probably accept the ownership of other life necessities including water without batting an eye. Why?

[chefranden]

1. Chef, I like what you are saying. You don't speak like an American but like one who is looking on from the outside. It's pretty amazing when someone can see themselves and their country from the outside like that.

 

2. Sorry, I got sidetracked here. My point is that this is the same philosophy that the American Constitution is built on. And I can see the similarities. This philosophy has led to so much utter and absolute unhappiness for me in my life that I totally fail to see how it can possibly lead to happiness for anyone except the haves. The Old Order Mennonite community operates very much by the Common Sense philosophy and it works very well for people who fit in and are successful money-wise--perhaps equivilent of the middle class for your example. For all others, in my observation, it's varying degrees of a living death--and they are trapped there. Thus, I agree with the point you're making.

 

1. I've been an outsider since I got back from Vietnam, my personal WTF experience.

 

2. Yes this is the way I understand it. The founding fathers got their philosophy from the Scottish Enlightenment writers, the form of the republic from Rome, and the idea of federation from the Iroquois.