Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Forrest Curo on 7th mo. 9, 2016 at 9:44am

"Whatever else it might mean, the parable of the lilies of the field certainly indicates that the things necessary for human existence were at hand.... This was the common wisdom of the period, first articulated in the Epicurean school. The axiom obviously verifies common experience. And the exception well-known in antiquity is the period when everybody lacks the basic necessities due to drought, famine, or war. At such a time, money is of no value, as Aristotle notes: 'a man well-supplied with money may often be destitute of the bare necessities of subsistence, yet it is anomalous that a man may be well-supplied with it yet die of hunger.' Therefore money is not true wealth. For biblical interpretation, it is significant that such an assessment of money is no longer common in the contemporary Western world. It is further significant that today there are people in industrial societies who do in fact lack the necessities of life."

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Kirby Urner on 7th mo. 10, 2016 at 12:29pm

I'd take a page from the Pacific Northwest and "potlatch economics".  

http://nativeamericannetroots.net/diary/631

A wealthy person is a life-support provider i.e. someone chief-like who is able to disburse furs, meats, stores of all kinds, in great abundance. A wealthy person may afford displays of great generosity.  

A poor person is someone who is not in a position to do this.  Some would if they could, may have in the past and may again in the future ("poor" is a temporary status, not a permanent feature).  Others are by nature more scrooge-like and miserly (not to be confused with "wealthy").

Great artists are not poor as they give of their wealth.  Much wealth is metaphysical (in the form of information).  Einstein was wealthy in this sense, sharing his deep insights.  Donald Trump, not so much (more into profiting at the expense of others in some zero-sum game).

Wealth is the ability to provide life support, nothing to do with money specifically.  Money is not all that valuable in some economies, in terms of what it can't buy (e.g. respect or true believers).

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Forrest Curo on 7th mo. 10, 2016 at 9:04pm

You've somewhat idealized the potlach thing: there was also a considerable amount of sheer destruction involved, not in a spirit of 'what can I provide' but of 'what can I afford to trash.' Three honored heroes in a potlach story were sitting by the fire where the host was throwing on great quantities of expensive oil to destroy several precious copper sheets; they burned to death because they refused to move 'for such a little fire.'

A great part of the discontent Jesus addressed was due to the fact that the rich of his time were not fulfilling their role under the Torah of making sure the poor had enough, nor following the (again idealized) Roman role of distributing wealth to their 'clients', ie the synchophants and flunkies and influence-peddlars who in turn were supposed to distribute favors in return for obsequious gratitude to those lower down the chain of patronage.

Probably we need to be clear in this whether we're talking about some ideal of 'true' wealth, or rather 'the stuff people collect to gain points in some cultural zero-sum game (our contemporary 'rich'?).

And I've always had a bit of confusion about where, if anywhere, most of us would fit. Malina doesn't think the bulk of us would belong anywhere in the Biblical classification. We aren't actually starving or malnourished, yet it takes considerable effort and dumbluck to maintain that condition -- while the leisure it would take to be 'wealthy' in an ancient sense isn't generally available.

In one of GB Shaw's prefaces he says that a true gentleman is someone who makes a living through either plunder or inherited plunder -- and is prepared to kill people, if necessary, to maintain his 'honor'. That's really the background of the legendary story of William Penn and his sword; not that he was disturbed by a badge of rank, but the fact that it expressed a readiness to do violence. That sort of 'honor' went out of fashion soon after we got dueling pistols capable of hitting what they were aimed at...

Much of this really depends on to what extent the poor of our time, like those of Jesus' period, are deprived of the honor due us as human beings -- and to what extent the 'wealthy' might really benefit anyone vs the extent to which they're playing a sterile zero-sum game.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Kirby Urner on 7th mo. 11, 2016 at 2:12am

Forrest Curo said:

You've somewhat idealized the potlach thing:

Yeah I'm sure the institution was greatly abused by Chief Wannabes, left and right.  N8Vs have their many breeds of misguided, being human (not necessarily my favorite species but who made me the judge?).

A great part of the discontent Jesus addressed was due to the fact that the rich of his time were not fulfilling their role under the Torah of making sure the poor had enough, nor following the (again idealized) Roman role of distributing wealth to their 'clients', ie the synchophants and flunkies and influence-peddlars who in turn were supposed to distribute favors in return for obsequious gratitude to those lower down the chain of patronage.

So much corruption!  

Tonight I'm catching up on where we're at with electronic voting, which I know many distrust because it's easy to rig.  

On the other hand, given strong encryption....lots to learn about, the Bible not much of a guide.  

I don't expect Bible characters to have the answers to all life's questions.  Very unfair to them.  Our own time needs to figure it out in light of our own realities -- another way of saying "continuing revelation" was never optional.

Probably we need to be clear in this whether we're talking about some ideal of 'true' wealth, or rather 'the stuff people collect to gain points in some cultural zero-sum game (our contemporary 'rich'?).

Yes, I agree.  So much game theory is thinly disguised mumbojumbo anyway.  They're rarely zero-sum if worth playing, over the long haul.  I have nothing against competitive sports though.  Do we see much in the way of team sports in the Bible?  I really like that movie The Cup (1999), about Buddhist monks getting a dish receiver from town so they could tune in the final playoffs.  The director is Bhutanese.

And I've always had a bit of confusion about where, if anywhere, most of us would fit. Malina doesn't think the bulk of us would belong anywhere in the Biblical classification. We aren't actually starving or malnourished, yet it takes considerable effort and dumbluck to maintain that condition -- while the leisure it would take to be 'wealthy' in an ancient sense isn't generally available.

I try not to worry my little head about people in the Bible too much.  They had their lives and struggled bravely in their own times (spans thousands of years I realize, billions if you count the first six days).  

They had enough on their plates without trying to be role models for people living thousands of years hence, lets give 'em a break already.

To live vicariously through Bible characters is lazy and sinful by my lights, like watching too much TV.

"You will say, 'Christ saith this, and the apostles say this;' but what canst thou say? Art thou a child of the Light, and hast thou walked in the Light, and what thou speakest, is it inwardly from God?" (famous Quaker mantra)

In other words, get off your butts you couch potatoes, stop hunkering over your Bibles like its American Idol as if you don't have a voice and a life of your own.  Stop trying to parrot the street corner preacher fer crying out loud.  No extra points in heaven for memorizing every chapter & verse, nice try though.

In one of GB Shaw's prefaces he says that a true gentleman is someone who makes a living through either plunder or inherited plunder -- and is prepared to kill people, if necessary, to maintain his 'honor'. That's really the background of the legendary story of William Penn and his sword; not that he was disturbed by a badge of rank, but the fact that it expressed a readiness to do violence. That sort of 'honor' went out of fashion soon after we got dueling pistols capable of hitting what they were aimed at...

As I mentioned in a blogged review of the film Major Barbara, Shaw was showing suspicion for the Quaker Cadbury and his Quakernomics Utopia concepts.  Quakers back then were seeing socially responsible business as possibly being able to take care of people at relatively high living standards, a novel idea.

Unfortunately, the competition was keen to see Quakers fail in this regard, as happy workers with education and health care would make them look bad.  Not a new pattern.  Doesn't mean we shouldn't keep trying.

Much of this really depends on to what extent the poor of our time, like those of Jesus' period, are deprived of the honor due us as human beings -- and to what extent the 'wealthy' might really benefit anyone vs the extent to which they're playing a sterile zero-sum game.

I'm skeptical we have truly wealthy people as they all share the same ghetto planet with people dying of hunger unnecessarily, violence all over. Sure, you can have your private swimming pool and fenced compound, bodyguards and so on, but against that backdrop of species incompetence, even the rich have to wonder, at least now and then, if this is that hell they talked about as an afterlife. "I wonder if we've all died and gone to hell" is something to think about, while sipping that morning mimosa.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Forrest Curo on 7th mo. 11, 2016 at 5:36pm

People in the Bible are saying what they meant, rather than whatever a 21st Century person automatically will imagine they mean. (That wasn't necessarily even what a 2nd Century person thought they meant -- but more recent changes in our culture have been far more profound.)

On another hand, Mallin ends the book by bringing up a more important issue: What did God intend all this to convey to people born long after the writers? That's the existential question that makes it matter what these people said, and meant.

If they got it wrong sometimes, so can we. They were following a path themselves, not laying a track for the rest of us -- but "figuring it out in light of our own realities" needs to include what they did discover, not have us talking if as no one else had ever been this way before.

• ▶ Reply

▶ Reply to Discussion