« Owens River Gorge Pics | Main | its true »
March 13, 2003
Happiness and simplicity...
Mammoth is a strange place. I don't know if anyone would claim it contains a cross-section of America. Rather, it ONLY contains those on opposite sides of the spectrum. On one hand you have the wealthy, who got where they are by working hard, juggling lots of balls. They believe what they've earned gives them status and they are not afraid to flaunt it or question others who do not have as much.On the other side are those whose life revolves around simplicity. They do not have many balls in the air, as few as possible. They work, just like everyone, but they don't take their work home. They spend as much time as they can doing the things that they enjoy. They even make the best of work, even though they'd rather be doing something else. Most importantly, they maintain as few responsibilities as possible. In their unspoken view, responsibilities just get in the way of them doing the things they want to do.
Then there's me. I'm sort of in between. My life is not simple, nor is it overly complex. I make an effort to simplify it where I can, but it is not simple. Luckily, my marriage does not bring me much complexity. My life is not simple because I have a lot of responsibilities. I am a full-time manager at P3 where I am charged with opening, closing and keeping the store running well. I run Sarahpeutics, my wife's book business, which requires time every week, at the least expected time. I have massive debt which I am constantly aware of as I work hard to keep on-time and on-track with all my bills. This definitely takes time every week. I, of course, have my household and husbandry duties, but these are tiny compared to the others. Then there are the responsibilities which may not seem like responsibilities to some, but are to me. It is important for me to train. Climbing, outdoor aptitude, and cardio. To others, this is a hobby, but while it can be considered a hobby for me, it is much more. It is a direction I am headed with my life. It is an activity that directly improves my quality of life as well as the quality of myself. Furthermore, I plan on climbing Denali next spring and this will require a tremendous amount of commitment (ie. responsibility) to getting in the proper physical and mental shape, beyond making sure I am more than capable of doing everything required of me to get there and back without incident.
I am considering joining the Mono Search and Rescue team. There is a recruitment meeting on the 26th that I'm going to attend. Being on the team is a good deal of responsibility and will require a good amount of my time, especially initially as I take 16 classes in all areas of back country search and rescue. The idea of so much free training as well as contributing to the community which is giving me so much, appeals to me. But its still more responsibility. I still struggle with this idea of weighing the rewards of simplicity vs. the rewards of responsibility.
Recently its come to my attention through a mental survey of those that I know that there is a correlation between simplicity in ones life and happiness and contentment. I know this will immediately seem controversial to some people who will gladly point out people who are happy, content, and have a lot of responsibility. I do not deny its possible, but suggest that first, too much or too little responsibility is a relative term, and second that there may be those types of people who truly do thrive on responsibility.
Gauging happiness and/or contentment is not an exact science. I am using more of the instinct method with those I hang around with enough to know their moods. Those friends of mine that lead simple lives just seem happier. They smile more, laugh more, and take life less seriously (in a good way). They are easy going and not over sensitive. Plus, they seem to be less self focused than their counterparts. I know from experience that one can quickly have enough responsibility to where you don't have time to think about others. How could it even be expected of you? Whereas those with simpler lives tend to have richer relationships. They have more time and mental energy to cultivate them.
Taking the devil's advocate position. Responsibility isn't all bad. One can definitely further oneself and ones image of his/herself through achieving success through fulfilling ones responsibilities. This is certainly true of kids. (nobody read anything into that). We all know people who are TOO laid back to the point where they can't seem to fulfill ANY of their responsibilities. Certainly there must be a balance.
However, I believe most Americans (the group I can speak most accurately about), have a skewed sense of this balance. They do a lot of things because it is socially expected of them. For many, the burden of satisfying social expectation becomes the biggest responsibility of all.
So, given that this balance is relative (there is no RIGHT or WRONG in this matter), how do we determine where we should be? I haven't quite figured it out yet, but I'm leaning towards of responsibility litmus test. You come up with and prioritize what is important to you. Then ask whether this responsibility is more important than the things it would cause you to sacrifice. I know its not as simple as that, but maybe its a starting point.
I'll give more thought on this later... when its not so late.
Posted by wonko at March 13, 2003 12:33 AM
Comments
I think you are overgeneralizing about people with money. Without the money of philanthropic wealthy people the arts would suffer as would places like St. Mary's food bank or domestic abuse shelters. I think one's happiness depends upon how they feel about themselves rather than their degree of responsibility or the money in their pocket.
Posted by: lOLLY at March 13, 2003 04:32 PM
The arts, in the grandest sense, wouldn't suffer without "philanthropic wealthy people". Art continues.
Skewed views of art as the thing that people produce for money would be re-aligned, but art isn't dependent on the wealthy, just as music isn't dependent on the recording industry. They just have a stranglehold on public opinion.
Posted by: kasei at March 13, 2003 05:40 PM
I knew that thought would be controversial. There are a lot of these, money isn't bad, arguments which are chicken or the egg types of arguments. The fact that 'art' requires so much money is not a philonthropic thing. The price of plays in New York have increased severely disproportionate to the rate of inflation in the past 50 years. Plays used to be more affordable. Why do they have to be so expensive? Because they can be. Kasei is right, art doesn't need money.
You can mark the same sort of arguments for food banks and the like. Why do we have such a gap between classes in our society to justify so many people needing food banks.
I agree with your last statement, but add that how you feel about yourself IS often tied to money and responsabilities. Having responsibilities one doesn't want can definitely affect how one feels about his/herself.
The part you have to read again in what I said is about the level of money and responsibility a person should have being relative. I do not feel qualified to assert that a specific amount of money or responsibility is 'too much' or 'too little' for everyone. Rather, I stipulate that most people seem out of balance in those regards for whatever their balance is.
Posted by: Wonko at March 13, 2003 07:14 PM
I did not say art would cease to exist;I said it would suffer. There will be art as long as creative people exist. Without donations opera companies,for example would not have the means to continue. Tenors could sing in their showers, sing for friends or work in restaurants but they would have no public forum to perform their art. Future generations would be denied the privilege of enjoying this great medium. Classical symphonic Orchestras would go the same route,etc. Many painters,sculptors,ect. would not be able to enjoy their creativity as much if they didn't have financial sponsors and had to spend long hours daily toilng at a mundane job to support themselves.
Posted by: lolly at March 17, 2003 04:25 PM
free concerts in parks? free play festivals? clay comes from the earth.... paint pigments come from the earth.... art would exist no matter what the financial status of the world is. art will exist as long as we still communicate with each other.... art is communication.
Posted by: at March 18, 2003 06:41 PM
Post a comment
Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)
(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)