The first story I want to get out is a memory of a magazine article I read when I was of college age but not yet in college. It was about the time that the term 'yuppie' was first being coined, and when I had no doubts that was the life for me.
The article profiled several families and how they lived at their various income levels. And there were two that I remember in particular. One was a family of redheads with four kids. The dad looked something like Eddie Rabbit, I recall. They lived in a big huge rustic looking house. The family made something over six figures, which seemed just awesome, and the dad made the point that he really enjoyed having his big family and the extra money made it comfortable to do so. He specifically eschewed yuppie trappings to have a big happy family. That surprised me.
But the family I remember most was in fact the wealthiest family profiled. I don't remember anything about them other than this. The dad owned a restaurant in Los Angeles and pulled in about 300k per year. It was a very successful business and he had many offers to start another. But he didn't want to because he said at this point if he made more money all he would do is buy more expensive gifts for the people on his Christmas list. So he essentially said that more money could not make him happier.
Two very persuasive role models.
Now that I think of it, I'm certainly more like the first family than the second. But what strikes me at this moment, is how my ambition to make even more money than either of those two has always hinged on my desire to be a philanthropist. Or as Cobb readers know, the KFSC - Kung Fu Santa Claus, kicking ass and giving gifts. And I have never before this moment considered that I would not be morally up to the task, or that there could possibly be anything immoral about philanthropy. It has alway represented to me, an end capable of justifying any money grubbing means. Today I am skeptical.
What I am much more sanguine about is what I'm calling the Epicurean Edge and it is boosted a bit from Hitchens. We all understand the axiom that the best revenge is living well. Well how about a good life is its own reward? Here is (read for the first time) the Wiki entry:
In the Epicurean view, the highest pleasure (tranquility and freedom from fear) was obtained by knowledge, friendship and living a virtuous and temperate life. He lauded the enjoyment of simple pleasures, by which he meant abstaining from bodily desires, such as sex and appetites, verging on asceticism. He argued that when eating, one should not eat too richly, for it could lead to dissatisfaction later, such as the grim realization that one could not afford such delicacies in the future. Likewise, sex could lead to increased lust and dissatisfaction with the sexual partner. Epicurus did not articulate a broad system of social morality that has survived.
Not too shabby.
I have a Catholic School / ghetto Bruce Lee appreciation for asceticism, but I also like bourbon and steak. So whom are we kidding? I like the moderation of passion that comes from returning to Miller's Alley. One should not get overly concerned over matters one is not directly responsible for or cannot hope to influence. This was Dennis Miller's rule in dealing with agitated callers to his radio talk show who hated GWBush's foreign policy or the idiocy of Sarah Palin. Dude, get a life. Take a chill pill. Simmer down. Outrage is of little practical use, and beware of the man who would try to convince you otherwise.
I cannot think of Duke Ellington without thinking of 'Premature Autopsies'. The key phrase being 'elevate with elegance'. OH SNAP That was Jeremiah Wright!! Well...
Anyway the point is that there is something we should be able to see in the quality of our culture that tells whether or not we are morally healthy and psychologically sound. It may sound obvious, but what I mean to stress is that the Epicurean may transcend political or religious fidelity. That a politics that doesn't deliver steak and eggs is probably not a good politics, that a religion that doesn't deliver bourbon and tobacco is probably not a good religion, that a philosophy that doesn't deliver a sense of profound satisfaction as exemplified by a quiet moment by the fire is probably not a good philosophy.
The Edge is in place to suggest that the ends of these goods are not the whole of the battle for moral and psychological fitness. You still need the payload of the PPE (philosophy, politics, economics) as well as its discipline, but if you find that in the course of applying that discipline that you're missing out, then you have a useful indicator.
Recent Comments