Re: Hello Again


"a monkfish for all seasons" <mancamera@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:4O19i.7873$J15.6477@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

This is just my view of the situaton. You can take it or leave it.

People say to you, "BTN, how can you be so depressed when you have so much
more money than most other people?"

You reply, with total justification, "Money does not guarantee happiness."


I think you're hugely overestimating the amount of money I have! (or
underestimating 'most other people') but compared to a lot of people /here/
I take your point.

Just for the record, in case anyone has me down as some kind of millionaire:
I have no capital, no investments, no property, no trust funds, and no
significant savings. I earn a salary that is a bit above the national
average, and that is it.

And I'm not complaining about it, because I know a lot of people are worse
off than me, but to say that I have 'so much more money than most other
people' would be inaccurate.

I suspect that given the proportion of people who own their home, I actually
have less monetary wealth than most other people.


You then also say, "If i was in a relationship, however, i wouldn't be
depressed."


Yes.

Well, there are two things here.

I feel like my 'depression' stems from the absence in my life of a very
specific relationship with a certain person. However, /any/ loving
relationship would certainly help.

It's like somebody who needs to buy a car to drive from John O'Groats to
Lands End. In their ideal world they might like to do it in a Bentley, but
they'd accept any roadworthy vehicle to do it.


I don't see how you can distinguish having money and being in a
relationship. Both are external circumstances of life, so if money is no
guarantee of happiness, then neither is being in a relationship.


Depends on the person I think. I don't doubt that for /some/, depression
could be alleviated by sufficient money.

It's not a guarantee, but then what is in life?


There are rich people who are depressed; there are poor people who are
happy (and vice versa).

There are couples who are depressed; there are singletons who are happy
(and vice versa).


Absolutely. Human needs are not generic.


The real problem is not that you are lacking this one thing, but that you
feel you need it to make your life complete - that you reduce all your
problems to this one area of life.


I don't complain particularly about other areas of my life (either they are
going OK - e.g. work, or they just don't matter that much to me - e.g.
health, football).

Now, with relationships, it's a combination of something that

a) is important to me
and
b) is going badly for me

So I think it's natural for me to focus on that.

Consider the following graph of importance vs actuality:

-Not Important----------Hugely Important-
|
Perfect|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rubbish|
|


It's fairly obvious where my love-life would be. Now you raise an
interesting point, that *maybe* its position on the importance Axis is
artificially inflated in my mind /because/ of its position on the going
well/badly Axis.

I disagree that it's 'reducing my problems' to this area, however. Of
course, I have other problems. But, they are either less severe or less
important. They don't affect the relationship problem, except perhaps in
terms of how I'm perceived by others (e.g. my unhealthiness might make me
unnattractive, or I'm not rich enough etc.)


I think the real problem is when we look outside ourselves (to money, to
fame, to success, to another person) to justify our existence, to make
everything ok.


Most people do that. Maybe you're right, but I struggle to put my need for
magical love into the same box as someone else's need for a luxury yacht, 10
bedroom house or prada shoes.


Because, if you do get yourself a missus - like the person who wins the
lottery and is diappointed that the money doesn't make them happy - i'll
be surprised if this is the miracle cure for your depression you've been
looking for.


GIL is the miracle cure. Any other relationship would be OK though, but I
wouldn't expect it to make me totally happy because it wouldn't be GIL.


And if i'm wrong, knock yourself out, kiddo:

www.MyForeignBride.com


Mercenary wives are normally just long-term prostitution though. And
short-term prostitution doesn't make me happy.


Tho single myself, i'd be happy to see you sort something out, if only
because it'd shut you up ; )


You're not the first person to say as much, and I'll carry on saying it
until it actually happens - it might motivate somebody to pair me up with
someone!


And when you talk elsewhere about the distribution of wealth and the
distribution of love, that's a totally false analogy.

The entire value of money is predicated on the principle of scarcity: some
people have it, and some people don't.


DWTWP somewhat. Yes, I think that love is a different kind of resource to
money, and the things that money can buy.

I do believe it to be limited though. Plus, love cannot be artificially
created and re-valued in the way that money is.


But we make our own love. In theory, there's no reason why everyone in
the world shouldn't have more than enough love. Love isn't something that
comes from outside, that you can give to someone or take away, that you
can redistribute.


Most love is wasted, spent, lost on the breeze.

Most love, in truth, is unwanted.


The only love that can make any difference to your life at all is the love
that comes from within.


I've heard this so many times, and this I really disagree with. It's too
much of an easy answer for me, and doesn't begin to explain why so many
people who love themselves less than I do, are nonetheless loved by others.


See, you disclaim materialism yet seem to reduce everything into rigidly
materialistic terms.


I know, I do seem to do that, don't I. I can't resist an analogy at the best
of times.


And that's the true source of your unhappiness.

So it seems to me <shrug>


You've raised some good points and made them well.

BTN


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Grasping Bailout Numbers
    ... So when the news talks about billions and trillions of dollars in bailout money, you now have a mental yardstick to give these quantities meaning. ... The most famous depression in modern times, of course, was the one that began in a typical financial panic in 1929 and lasted until the advent of World War II. ... The currently fashionable attitude toward the business cycle stems, actually, from Karl Marx. ... Since these cycles also appeared on the scene at about the same time as modern industry, Marx concluded that business cycles were an inherent feature of the capitalist market economy. ...
    (soc.retirement)
  • Re: Caregivers in the group - Need advice - Reply to group
    ... your recalcitrant spouses? ... Dennis said that while you can't tell people what to do, ... have a higher incidence of depression than the healthy population. ... waste money on things i don't need/that won't help me. ...
    (alt.support.mult-sclerosis)
  • Re: Bailout (politics)
    ... Just a big transfer of money. ... I've not even heard the likes of Bush, etc mention "depression": ... money out of US institutions, start a panic in govt bonds, etc. ... agrees that this is no ordinary recession. ...
    (alt.home.repair)
  • Re: Helter Skelter - Are we there yet?
    ... Will a horrible depression occur? ... Wallstreet by foisting fiat money on the public via HJR192! ... A We Deserve It Dividend. ... "But it means that every adult 18+ has $297,500.00 in their pocket. ...
    (alt.gathering.rainbow)
  • Re: IT IS OVER
    ... > rolling into the area with no money, food or a place to stay, the people ... > proliferated since the Great Depression of the 30's. ... And since neighbors need each other, ... And so it goes that this thing called the Grateful Dead is ...
    (rec.music.gdead)
Loading