Conference quark::human_relations-v1

I've learned the hard way...

I'll take  the  good  relationship  any  day.   Money  can't buy the love of
another.

jim

    How good of a relationship?
    
    How much money are talking about here?
    
    I've never felt in need of a good relationship.  I have felt in
    need of cash.  There's a balance point somewhere around the cost
    of a Ferrari.
    
    Kris

    "We already know what you are. We're just haggling over the price."
    
    What does the "good relationship" entail?
    
    What kind of money are we talking about?
    
    I mean, are the options $5 million and no love to call my own on the
    one hand, and a life of total and utter poverty with my True Love on
    the other?
    
    Money isn't important to me. I have my luxuries and expensive toys,
    for sure, but that's irrelevant. I'm not rich, but I live comfortably
    enough that I don't feel I need to kill myself to get more money.
    I don't feel it's worth the stress.
    
    On the other hand, a "good relationship" isn't that important to
    me, either. I feel self-sufficient enough (i.e. happy enough with
    myself) that I don't feel I need to put myself through destitution
    in order to have a "good relationship".
    
    What I would rather have is (c) a balance between the two.
    
    --- jerry

    The way mankind is going... I'd much rather have the money... 
    
    but ask me in another 8 years, and I just might change my mind...

    -1
    
    Excellent point Mike!  I remember Eddie Murphy talking about putting
    it on lease!  :^)
    
    Dwight

Interesting.

If as individuals, we place money ahead of relationships, in the long
run we won't have money or meaningful relationships.  A society
based primarily on greed cannot sustain itself.

If on the other hand, we make our relationships with people and the
planet meaningful, money won't be a problem.

All too often, it seems easier to think about how to get what we want,
than to know what exactly we should want.

- Peter

    Your loving may give me a thrill
    But your kisses won't pay my bills
    
    I'll take the money!
    
    

    
    
    	I've got the relationship... You can have the money.
    
    I would not trade for all the $ in the world...........
    
    :]
    cw

    or those that did choose love had to spend a lot of money to 
    
    	1. Get out of the relationship
    	2. Pay for counseling after they were so screw up by the
           relationship
    
    :-)

    I've seen too many loving relationships vanish in squabbling and
    bitterness when the money wasn't enough to pay the bills and keep
    the kids fed to believe that love conquers all or that money is
    totally unnecessary to love.
    
    --bonnie

    I might respond money, given the fact that I have not had a serious
    relationship in many years and I have been happy and I enjoy life.
    
    I have been extremely poor and even now there is not enough money for
    me to live alone, have a decent car and take a vacation once a year. 
    
    Money would add a new dimension to my life that I have never
    experienced.

    
    
    	I will take the money.  I don't think I can trust anybody else
    	other than myself.  People change and things happen.  But you 
    	can always trust the cash in your hand (Of course not in South
    	American currency).

    re .12
    
    The original "Richard Cory" was written by Edwin Arlington Robinson in
    1897.  I just pulled out my poetry book and read both the Robinson and
    the Simon version (incidentally, Simon's was subtitled "With Apologies
    to E. A. Robinson").  As far as I understand, there are no indications
    in neither poems that the fictional Richard Cory had any problems
    finding babes (if you don't believe me, reada the third stanza of
    Simon's version :-) :-)).  
    
    Eugene
                                                           

    
    There is nothing like true love and enough money....
    
    Love and enough money between the two of you to live at whatever
    comfort of living you want or are acoustomed to is the MAGIC key.
    
                                                       Bill
    

    If you've really known either, you won't want to live without either.

    
    "What have you done for me lately?" 
    
    				by Janet Jackson
    
    

I would be quite happy with no money and True Love.

On the other hand, even given a hunk of money, I don't see why me being me would
have any problem having at least halfway decent relationships.

Jim.

    Money, any day. Then you have the freedom to spend time in nurturing a
    good relationship. I feel some relationships never get off the ground
    when there's not enough money to do things together. I realize there
    are many things to do which do not require money, but many of the fun
    things, do.
    
    				$U$AN
    
    

    My experience (from a long-term romance which started with zero $$$) is
    that when you're in love you get comfortable a lot quicker - you end up
    with two incomes, one rent, and in the meantime you have plenty of
    entertaining things to do that don't involve spending money.  (Of
    course, I don't associate love with kids, which would make a
    difference.)
    
    When I'm single, I'm poorer in more ways than one.
    
    Ray

    The Question that needs to be asked here is:  Do relationships fail
    because of the lack of money, or were the relationships based on
    one or both of the parties being money hungry?????
    
    I know that two people working together, can in time create a
    comfortable life style.  Now adays it seems that people want to
    marry into it rather than work for it.
    
    I think its sad to see society evolve as it has, to one where it
    is easier to dump a relationship than to work things out in times
    of trouble. 
    
    As far as I'm concerned, the only people that money can by some
    happiness are, the really poor and hungry. for those others out
    there who just want more money, I wonder if there ever will be 
    enough.

    I've often thought about people who come into a great deal of money
    and shed their current SOs.  They may take up with other people,
    but that's not to say they've simply found real love at a different 
    economic level.  I have wondered many times if deep in our souls,
    our only connection to each other is pain;  that if we have all the 
    material things we could possibly hope for, then mere friendship, a 
    few good laughs and an adequate sex life, (which are all easily
    available to the wealthy), are quite enough and certainly preferable
    to poverty and neediness.  
    
    "What is 'love', anyway?"  (Howard Jones).
    
    Wealthy people don't like to be used any more than poor people do,
    but do they yearn for one deep, monogamous, romantic connection,
    (beyond the lip-service), as desperately?  I truly wonder.
                            

    
    -1
    
    >>>>     Wealthy people don't like to be used any more than poor people do,
    but do they yearn for one deep, monogamous, romantic connection,
    (beyond the lip-service), as desperately?  I truly wonder.
    
    
    This is what most people "think" they want, rich or poor.
    
    

    Re .17, this is about *love*, Eugene, not "finding babes"! Huh!
    :-)
    
    I really want both - but if I *have* to choose.  It depends.  Is
    my true love going to last forever (till one of us dies) and bring
    me a lifetime of happiness or is my true love going to dump me in
    a couple of years for some other "babe"?  I might pick 30 years
    of true love over money, but without the guarantee I'd probably
    pick the money.  People can decide to take off - or *I* could get
    sick of the person I'm in love with myself - is there any guarantee
    the love won't just be gone some morning like a cold - suddenly
    it's there and suddenly it's gone (It's happened to me before.)
     But, if I manage my money right I can keep it for the rest of my
    life and perhaps do a lot of good for other people and animals with
    it, too.  I don't know.  My first impulse is to take the love, but
    I think it might be more sensible to take the money.  I've had
    love before and lost it.  I've never had any money so maybe I should
    try that.
    
    Lorna
    

    re: .24
    
    The real question is...does a relationship never get a start because
    there is no promise of money, or of finacial security into the golden
    years.  Having taken the time to tally the previous 28 replies I have
    noticed that ALL female respondents have voiced either money over love
    or "both".  At the same time 2 males preferred money over love and two
    wanted both.  The other 8 wanted love more than money.
    
    This supports a theory of mine...one that I will not bother HR readers
    with.  Something about the "nesting response".  Pardon me, but I have
    to go slay a dragon and then till my fields...move the herd on up to
    the north forty, etc..
    
    

    re .29
    
    If believing that love is more important then money in a 
    relationship makes me unique, then so be it!!! I guess I'd 
    prefer to know that my SO would stay with me if something
    terrible were to happen, and we lost all that I/we had, and
    not start looking at the other side of the fence.
    
    I guess I look more at the values that people have, and not
    what they carry in their wallet.
    
    Nils

    Re .28, Mike, I want it all! :-)
    
    Re .30, your reply makes me think that maybe some people interpreted
    the question differently than others.  If the choice was:  I'm already
    in love with one man who has no money and then some guy I don't
    love comes along and says, Hey, I'm rich, why don't you marry me?,
    I wouldn't leave the guy I loved and go off with the other guy just
    for the money.  Maybe some women would, but I'm not that cold. 
    Of course, if I wasn't already in love and the rich guy I didn't
    love came along it might be a different story... :-)
    (It would depend on his personality, brains, looks, etc.  I'd have
    to at least like him, even if I didn't love him.)
    
    But, I didn't interpret the question in the above manner.  I would
    never *pick* the person I was with because of what's in their wallet.
     
    I interpreted the question as being, if a fairy god mother came
    along and said, You can have your choice.  You can either meet somebody
    and fall madly in love with each other, *or* you can suddenly have
    a million dollars, which would I choose?  
    
    I don't think it's necessarily evil to say you'd rather have the
    money.  If I suddenly had a million dollars I might be able to do
    a lot more good with it, than I could just by falling in love with
    somebody tomorrow.  When I think what I could do with it....  Send
    my daughter to a good college, buy a house of my own so I can have
    as many cats as I want :-), start an antique jewelry business, take
    my daughter and myself on a tour of Europe...  I don't know.  I
    think I could have a lot of fun doing those things, and it would
    certainly expand my circle of friends so I'd probably find somebody
    to fall in love with anyway!
    
    Lorna
    
    

    re .31
    
    Being an idealist, I too have dreamed of having millions, and all
    the good I could do. And yes, I like to start out that way if the
    choice were mine, but I also wonder if I would feel different about
    the women I met, and did they love me for me, or the money I had.
    Emotions can be faked, reality is,  well, reality!!!!!
    
    Don't get me wrong, money is important, after all, we can't live
    on love. (Couldn't help that).  I just believe that love is the
    more important of the two. 
    
    Just because you have money doesn't guaranty that you'll have love,
    but if you have true love, you can get the money you need.
    
    Nils

    I interpreted the questions a little more permanently I guess than
    most--I gathered it to be the old "You can have love, or money,
    but not both, never."   So, faced with the choice of being rich
    for the rest of my life, but never having anyone to love me, or
    having someone to love me for the rest of my life and never being
    rich, I'd probably opt for the latter.
    
    Now, if the question was--"right now, you can have love or money,
    but not both--for time time being", sure I'd take money.  But to
    have to pick one to the absolute exclusion of the other, I think
    I'd take love.
    
    kim

    re: 33
    
    Yes, I definitely agree with Kim.  If it was either one or the other
    I'd take the love.  But... If I could take the money now and run and
    still have the opportunity to love later...  That would be the best of
    both worlds.
    
    Bob.
    

    I had the money and divorced it, the air travel card,trips to europe
    weekend trips to california just to ride a new rollercoaster and the lavish
    gifts from the in-laws. The only true love my ex or her family
    understood was for money. I would have had it made one day her father
    was worth $27M and she was the only child. All I had to do was put up
    a spoiled brat the rest of my life. Now I have ~$150 spending money the
    whole month and haven't taken a vacation since I divorced but I am happy.
    Wealth has it's price it takes away your ability to enjoy simple things
    like sitting on the deck burnin' a few burgers with good friends or
    just a quiet weekend at home both things I coulden't do when married.
    I'd rather be poor and truly enjoy my life than be rich and fly about
    the world looking for something I think might make me happy.
    
    -j
    

    As far as tallying up sides, I don't fall on the "love" side, the
    "money" side, or both. Perhaps I didn't explain my position well
    enough. The question as stated is incomplete.
    
    If one chooses love over money, does that person have to live in
    poverty or just not be *rich*? If one chooses money over love,
    does that mean that the person just won't have a True Love, or
    does it mean he or she won't have any friends at all?
    
    If I can have all the friends I want but not a "True Love", and
    be rich, I'd choose the money. If I can live comfortably -- neither
    rich nor poor -- I'd probably choose the love.
    
    --- jerry

    I vote for a good relationship!!! I think it is far important for a
    person's state of the mind...........but............money is nice too
    ;->!!!
    
    
    Lynne 

    As I read the replies to this hypothetical question I think that there
    might be a bias towards love based on the theory that love has greater
    value than money.  
    
    Love and money can both be selfish.  Perhaps though love is more
    selfish because it only benefits two people.  Money if used properly
    could be a means of making positive change in the world around you,
    as well as making your life better.
    
    The other commonly held belief is that you can't be whole without love. 
    There are many people that live out their lives without ever
    experiencing true love and yet find happiness.
    
    To me the way you answer this question does not say anything about your
    character.  Your character would be evident in the way you handled your
    choice if your wish was granted.
    

    The question in .0 didn't ask about love, it asked about "a good
    relationship," which I took to mean a serious sexual relationship
    that wasn't necessarily seen as permanent by the two parties. 
    
    The old saying "You can't cook love" pretty much summarizes my
    feelings about it -- love without enough money to live on dies
    awfully fast.
    
    That doesn't mean I would throw away love for money, only that
    love isn't an absolute value.  It's a balancing act.  You need a
    certain level of physical comfort (in the form of food, water,
    shelter) in order to even stay alive.  You need a certain amount
    of love (not necessarily in the form of a permanent monogamous
    sexual relationship) for good emotional health.  Beyond that --
    who knows?  What's true for one person might not be true for
    another.
    
    --bonnie

"The other commonly held belief is that you can't be whole without love."

I certainly feel that.

Jim.

re. 35

    Thanks for sharing that..  I guess from these replies 'experience' is the
best teacher!

    Get real folks, MONEY IS PAPER!  Love is an emotion/feeling, the greatest
feeling that you can ever have. There is no comparison.

     I am quite surprised that so many people are on money's side...makes one
alittle sad.

     Meredith

    "Money can't buy happiness, but it can make you awfully comfortable
    while you're being miserable."
    
    	-- Claire Booth Luce

	If we are talking about mutual exclusivity here, i.e. I get
	$15 million but I can never have a love relationship again,
	or I'm given the perfect love relationship with not a lotta
	money in each of our bank accounts ... hmm, wait a minute, I
	already have the latter.  And I'll merrily stick with that.

							   Carla

    Hypothetical situation:
    
    You are standing at the bar in an establishment where single people
    gather.  Great looking identical twins drive up in separate cars.  One
    drives a Porsche...the other drives a Pinto wagon.  They are both
    attracted to you and you to them.  Which one gets your best line?

    Whichever one shows the best personality.   :)
    
    kim

    re .35
    
    Wow, $27M!  What is her phone number$ :-) :-) :-)?
    
    Eugene

    
    re .29
    
    Men are basically suckers at heart... and its only human for women
    to press the advantage.
    
    

    re .0:  That's easy - I dumped someone with money once because the
    relationship wasn't good enough.  We did have fun though.

    Love. I've got (some) money. It don't kiss worth a damn.

    I dunno.  I think anyone in a Fnord Pinto might not have much horse
    sense (depending on the make and model and pressure-sensitivity
    of the gas tank).
    
    I talked to my mom a while ago about love.  She said I should marry
    for money if I could do it with a clear conscience, but admitted
    (as did I) that I would probably wind up being stupid like her and
    marrying for love.  She amended that I should make sure he has warm
    feet, though........ ;)
    
    -Jody
    

    Re .47, I think the opposite is just as true.
    
    Re .38, .39, Joyce and Bonnie, I think you both gave excellent replies
    and I fully agree with both of you. :-)
    
    Re .41, money isn't just paper!  Money is a house, and education,
    and travel, and hobbies, and books, and music, and oil paintings,
    and jewelry and nice clothes, and *time* to be with loved ones and
    friends, theater tickets, concert tickets, etc., etc.  As Joyce
    mentioned money is also something that is needed to do a lot of
    good for a lot of people - shelters for the homeless, cures for
    Aids, scholarships for students.
    
    I think Bonnie in .39, expressed my feelings very well.  I took
    love to be a romantic, sexual relationship, and while those can
    be wonderful (and sometimes can be pretty horrible) one doesn't
    need that type of relationship in order to have love in their lives.
     (I've given up on ever finding a man who could bring me as much
    happiness as my daughter or my cats, for example, but that's my
    problem - if it's a problem, which i'm not sure it is.  A person
    can also have very good friends whom they like a lot, and have a
    lot of fun with without being in love, too.)
    
    Hey, I still want both, *but* if I had to choose I really think
    I'd take the money over a *relationship* but not over having any
    love in my life at all.
    
    Re .44, the idea of somebody being a twin turns me off.  :-)
    
    Lorna
    
    
    

>     (I've given up on ever finding a man who could bring me as much
>    happiness as my daughter or my cats, for example, but that's my
>    problem 
    
    You just haven't found the right one, yet. But since you've given up
    _trying_ to find someone like that, you've increased your chances of
    actually doing just that tenfold. :-)
    
    The Doctah

In 'Gentlemen Prefer Blondes' the character played by Marilyn Monroe
(the calculating diamond loving blonde) says to the character played
by Jane Russel (the romantic, dewy eyed brunette): "If you marry
that pauper, you'll end up with a loveless marriage". 

Jane: "Who, me?"

Marilyn: "Sure. When you worry all day about money, you don't have 
time left for love".

Of course, it's only a musical comedy. In real life, Love is 
everything.

-- Ron

    I'm not sure that "romantic, dewy eyed brunette" is an adequate description
    of the Jane Russell character in "Gentlemen Prefer Blondes".  She certainly
    had realistic goals and ways of achieving them; it's just that what she
    wanted wasn't money.
    
    A quick look at the "Anyone Here for Love?" number (featuring Russell and
    most of a sweaty half-nude USA male Olympics team) should eliminate any idea
    that the Russell character is na�ve.  Enthusiastic, rather.
    
    One nice thing about the movie was that everyone (golddigger and golddiggee,
    luster and lusted-after) ended up happily agreeing to disagree.
    
    Of course, it's only a musical comedy.  In real life, everything is black
    and white.  (: >,)
    
    Ray

    re.48
    She's living in CT now I believe, New Milford.
    re. phone number.... Not a chance. 8^)
    
    -j

.4>                -< money can't buy me love >-

	Maybe you just don't know where to shop?? :*] :*]


.9>                                                       A society
.9> based primarily on greed cannot sustain itself.

	An interesting thought, especially considering the fact that,
	to a large extent, greed *is* what our (U.S.) society seems
	to be based on.


.41>   Get real folks, MONEY IS PAPER!  Love is an emotion/feeling, the greatest
.41>feeling that you can ever have. There is no comparison.

	Hmmmm.  Well, if you really think so...I've got this very large stack
	of (paper) printouts that I'd *willingly* trade for any and all
	money (green paper) that you've got... :*] :*]



	>>AL<<

I read a bunch of replies to this topic, and
it made me think about how, for so long, I always wanted more, and I bought it.
Then I wanted more, and I borrowed it. Then more, and I conned it. Then
more... ad nauseam. Meanwhile, my relationship with my wife and my two 
young kids turned into an inconvenience at best, an evil plot against me 
at worst. I piled up the material things that I thought could make
my family unit secure and comfortable. But we grew apart and miserable.
In the end, I put myself and those I loved through a lot of pain.
Now I make a concious effort to appreciate what I have. That in 
itself is work.

Anyway.

I think money gets a lot of undeserved merit. Madison Ave, through television
and print media have us convinced that happiness is measured in things only 
cash can get. Acquiring money and buying things is so simple even Zsa Zsa 
Gabor drives a $200,000 Rolls Royce. I don't want to pick on anyone. But 
Gabor has gone through at least 1/2 dozen marriages. She's always had money, 
but it seems she's been looking in the wrong places for the right thing. 
Or vice-versa.

If true love or a healthy relationship could be bought, Zsa Zsa
would likely put a lien on one of her cosmetics businesses and buy herself 
some happiness. If she could blame the LA Police for her longing for love and
her need for peace of mind, she probably would. I think she's trying. 

There are Bolivian and Columbian drug lords who are killing anyone
and destroying anything in their paths. They are not acting in the name of
love or relationships. And, it's just my opinion, but I see photos of 
these guys in the paper. And they look pretty crusty. They 
don't look real happy. Drug lords are extremists in the quest for 
material goods. They want dollars by the billions and power by the country. 
Those guys do not care about anything else.

Mahatma Ghandi was also extreme. But Ghandi wasn't really after anything.
At least not anything material. He was a man who had an excellent 
relationship -- with himself. To get that he had to look at himself. 

Looking within is very scary. For me, the quest for money was the easier 
path to happiness, at first. My payoff was nasty.
In photos I've seen of Ghandi, he looks happy and serene. Now, 
years after his death, he is considered to have been one of the 
greatest powers of example and one of the most loved men in the world. 

I just use Ghandi as an example of values. In changing my attitude, I'm 
seeing my relationships with people slowly falling into place. 
Some I take, some I leave. No shrink can do that for me. To me, 
people like Ghandi they have something I want and I know I need. 
And it's not an AK-47 and a trunkload of unmarked currency.

    re .59, in reality I think we all need enough money to have a
    comfortable life and enough love to be happy.  I don't think billions
    of dollars could ever make up for never finding love, but I know
    I wouldn't be happy living in a horrible slum or shack with anybody.
     We all need some money and some love in order to have happy lives.
     
    Lorna
    

    I think Lorna summed it up nicely. Moderation is the key to
    happiness with both love and money. As I mentioned in another
    note there are those who are slaves to love just as some are slaves
    to money. Neither sort of person seems to find happiness. Balance is
    what makes for a more peaceful and happy existence.

    Something I notice whenever I read the biographies of famous
    persons is that much of the time they were unhappy though they
    pursued their dreams with passion. Many left both love and money to
    follow the dream they had. Today we honor them but their
    contemporaries often did not and contrived to make their lives
    miserable. Perhaps they were slaves to the passion of ideals.

    Maybe the true road to happiness is to be average, with your life
    parceled out equally between love/money/ideals/reality/dreams. Being
    one who is prone to manic and depressive moods I couldn't really say
    but it seems so. liesl 

re. 59   THANK YOU for sharing and typing that reply.

         It sure sums up the way I feel and put powerfully into words.  My dream
is that all people understand this someday.

.62 - Thank you. You got my message, inspite of the typos.

.60 - What I tried to show in my reply was that I had built my own slum
shack, though I lived in my own $140K home in a suburban neighborhood. 
I still live in the house. But now I'm out of my slum shack. I'd trade the 
physical attributes of this home for a crowded studio flat if I felt that trade
was necessary to hold onto the emotional freedom I've allowed myself.

As the person in .61 said "moderation" is the key to most everything.
Otherwise, we're subject to
falling slave to ideals. But I've found that there is no overdosing on
personal growth and stepping outside myself. Especially when I start getting
sucked into the desire trap.

A guy named Eddy Rickenbacker, a fighter pilot in WWII, after dozens of
missions, was shot down and left to float at sea with several other pilots
for 21 days. Famous by then, Rickenbacker was interviewed and was asked
"Did you learn anything while being afloat in the middle of the ocean for
21 days." He said "Yes, I learned that as long as a person has all the 
fresh water he can drink, and all the food he needs to eat, he shouldn't
complain about anything." 

It's a thought.

    re .63, regarding enough fresh water and food, it's human nature
    to always strive/wish for a little bit more than we currently have.
     So, while I agree that people should be aware of and thankful for
    the good things in their lives, and not constantly complaining,
    I don't think people should be criticized for wanting a bit more
    than just enough food and water. :-)
    
    Lorna
    

.65

You read criticism where it was neither implied 
nor intended. My anecdote about "enough fresh water and food" was, as 
I said, just a thought. In the realm of physical needs and desires,
I think it's safe to say that enough fresh water and food is where it 
all begins. But for me, I couldn't see an end, and "if only I had..." 
became a way of life. In that, I took a whole lot more than water and 
food for granted and I appreciated next to nothing. Lack of appreciation
started making me lose things, mostly things money couldn't buy. I've 
gotten honest enough with myself to admit that nearly losing these things
was a by-product of me running from me, and me looking outside of 
reality and outside of today for something more, something better. 

Of course I want more than food and water. But I've given up thinking that
a faster car, a bigger house, or an exotic vacation can produce long-term
happiness. I can put myself behind the wheel of a Maserati-GT, or in a 
first-class seat on a Concorde bound for the French Riviera. But when I
get out of either seat, I'm still me. 

The vigilance of gratitude and honesty is a full time job. 
I don't have the time or the right to criticize anyone. 

Long before money was invented, people worked to create things of value
for themselves, and to exchange with others.  It's natural for people to
want to improve their living conditions, and to enjoy the fruits of human
labor.  Before money was invented it wasn't always practical to store wealth
(it might spoil), or trade the value you produced for the value you wanted or
needed.

Money was a brilliant invention.  A tool to allow people to store wealth,
to exchange things of value easily, to organize resources for more efficient
production and distribution.

But somehow we've lost sight of the fact that money is a tool to help
us manage human economic affairs.  Money represents the value of human
labor and previous investment.

To seek money as an end in itself regardless of need and without
producing something of corresponding value is taking from others.
If carried to extreme, it will ultimately impoverish society.

On our planet, millions suffer in severe poverty, while the wealthiest
among us are often engaged in financial speculation, leveraged buy-outs,
or other manipulations of the economic system to accumulate vast wealth
without producing anything people really need.  Ironically, we sometimes
even destroy wealth (by improperly disposing of hazardous materials
for example) in the pursuit of money.

Instead of thinking: wouldn't it be wonderful to have lots of money,
perhaps we could think: wouldn't it be wonderful to do something that
really helped meet human needs.  The later can make us all wealthy in
more ways than one.

- Peter

    
                If not money, it would be something else.
    
       "I'll give you one horse and three pigs for your daughter."
    
    
    				Dwight

.66>You read criticism where it was neither implied 
.66>nor intended. My anecdote about "enough fresh water and food" was, as 

>>    	So did I.
    
>>    	I don't like being told "you should be happy" or "you have no
>>    business complaining".
    
>>    	And that's what Mr Rickenbacker's quote seemed to be saying.
    

RE .67

I don't see "you should be happy" or "you have no business complaining" in
either of my notes.

Again, I'm not telling anyone what to do or how to feel about anything. 
I was only offering my thoughts. Rickenbacker's quote is just something 
I use to remember that wealthy is a state of mind. That's why I said I
had built my own slum shack while living in a very comfortable home. And
I admit that I want and I have a lot more than food and water. But I no 
longer feel that life owes me anyhting beyond the essentials of staying alive.

There was a time when Rickenbacker's quote would have made me scoff and
put me on the defensive. But that's not the way I interpret 
the words now.

What I hear from you is that you want to protect your right to complain. You
were born with that right and nobody can take it from you. If it makes you
happy, complain. When I find myself complaining, I can't see an end.

RE: .68 -- I concur. Thanks for sharing.

    
.63>21 days." He said "Yes, I learned that as long as a person has all the 
.63>fresh water he can drink, and all the food he needs to eat, he shouldn't
.63>complain about anything."
    
    	Now you should.
    
       	It's no biggie, really, it's just that I don't like people
    telling me that what I'm feeling is inappropriate.  That's what
    Mr Rickenbacker is doing.
    
    -mike z

Mike,
You're right - I interpreted the quote differently, and I didn't see it as
a lecture on gratitude because I keyed
in on the words "I learned," personalizing the quote to Rickenbacker. He's the
one who survived the 21 days, much more time than is necessary to contemplate
what is really needed to be happy. I read the quote and I thought, "Yeah, I'd
be thrilled by even just a mouthful of water after a only a few days out 
there."  As I said, I'm no more content with just surviving than 
anyone else. But I want to keep my dreams and ambitions realistic and honest. 
In that, my value on relationships with everyone outweighs acquisition for 
money by a wide margin on my scale. I think that was the origin of this topic. 

>.63>21 days." He said "Yes, I learned that as long as a person has all the 
>.63>fresh water he can drink, and all the food he needs to eat, he shouldn't
>.63>complain about anything."
>    
>    	Now you should.
>    
>       	It's no biggie, really, it's just that I don't like people
>    telling me that what I'm feeling is inappropriate.  That's what
>    Mr Rickenbacker is doing.

 I don't agree with that characterization. I think the point of the story is not
a matter of what feelings are appropriate, rather the point is one of 
appreciation. I find that many people get more and more unappreciative of
things as they accumulate more things. For example, if you eat a gourmet meal
every night, it's starts to be a waste. You just don't appreciate the food
anymore. But when you've been camping for a week, and eating rain soaked bread
with eggs prepared sunny-side on the ground, you get real appreciative of
a baloney sandwich on fresh bread. :-)

 So I don't think that the moral of the story has anything to do with the
appropriateness of your wants- I think it has to do with one person's
learning to appreciate very simple things (the basics).

 The Doctah

There is no question in my mind.....love would be my choice.....I've had
the chance at moeny before, but it was an empty feeling indeed...


/kath

PS:  (but of courese, it's always nice to have both....) :-)

>    	His opinion is valid for himself.
>    
>    	My opinion is valid for me.

 Very good, Mike.

>    	If I am not, I don't want someone telling me I should be.

 Fine, Mike.

>    	Does that make sense to you?

 Yes.

 The Doctah

< Note 841.75 by ANT::ZARLENGA "Whaddayou know? Your head's wooden!" >



.73>appreciation. I find that many people get more and more unappreciative of
.73>things as they accumulate more things. For example, if you eat a gourmet meal

>    	His opinion is valid for himself.
    
>    	My opinion is valid for me.
    
>    	If he is happy with just food and water, so be it.
    
>    	If I am not, I don't want someone telling me I should be.
    
>    	Does that make sense to you?
    
>    -mike z

And you don't, even for a second, wonder why anyone would be happy with only
fresh water and food? 

< Note 841.79 by ANT::ZARLENGA "you don't BUY corn, you RENT it!" >



.78>And you don't, even for a second, wonder why anyone would be happy with only
.78>fresh water and food? 
    
>    	No.

You must have wondered, or you wouldn't have said...

>    	I suppose if I were in his shoes I'd be happy just to be alive.

If he's lucky to be alive, water and food were, at one point, luxuries.

>    	But I'm not, and if I strive for more than just the basics,
>    I don't think there's anything wrong with that.

As I said, it's not an ethics question. There isn't any right or wrong.
    
    -mike z

< Note 841.81 by ANT::ZARLENGA "Foxboro, October 1st ... YES!!" >
                                -< Egads!! ;^) >-


.80>    -mike z

>    	Oh, no, not another "mike z".
    
>    -mike z

As long as you don't tell any light bulb jokes about yourself, there's
no cause for concern.

    I think that whether someone who is asked the question in .0 chooses
    love or money has a lot to do with the current situation in their
    lives.  If somebody is currently in a situation where they could
    really use a little extra money for something that is very important
    to them such as a downpayment on a house, a better apartment, a
    new car because their old one is breaking down and they can't imagine
    how they're going to afford a new one, they're wondering how they're
    ever going to pay for their kids college, or they would love an
    opportunity to start their own business, etc., then what they could
    do with money is uppermost in their minds, and if offered it they
    would take it.  Maybe they just aren't thinking about love right
    now.  Maybe they're doing okay without love but could use more money.
     It doesn't mean that all they care about is money but that right
    now they know what they would do with more of it, and they could
    use it.  On the other hand, I can't help but think that it is very
    easy for someone with a high income, who already owns their home,
    and a nice car, and has maybe already taken a couple of dream vacations
    to Hawaii or Europe, to smugly say that "Oh, no, I'll take love.
     Love is more important than money."  Yeah, of course it is if you're
    financially comfortable already!
    
    As much as I do want love in my love, and I do because I've always
    been an incurable romantic, I would still take the money at this
    point in my life.  The main reason I would take the money is that
    I don't make much, I have hardly any, and I have no chance to own
    my own house again unless remarry or something, or to own an really
    nice car.  My kid will probably win scholarships (because fortunately
    she's smart) but it would be nice to just have the money to send
    her to a good college.  I would take the money because even tho
    love is important to me, it is more important to me to have the
    money to give my daughter and myself a better life.  I would buy
    a house, a new car, send her to college, eventually buy her a car,
    we would both go to Europe, and would also have about 20 cats and
    it would be nobody's business.  I just think that with a little
    more money as long as I still had my daughter and my friends that
    I could have a good life.  Also, to me love seems to be much more
    easily attainable than money.  I have a feeling that I don't need
    a fairy godmother to get love, but I could use one to get some money!!
    
    Lorna
    

.83 got me thinking.  To choose between love and money, even hypothetically,
is absurd, because on a societal level, love and money are entertwined.

Several months ago, an essay appeared in Time magazine with the premise
that "we value money because we value each other."  Bizarre as it sounds,
it was a point well made: money is how we express our opinions and values 
economically -- whether it's by buying a painting because we like the
artist's work, or by sending a child to college.  If you have no money,
you do not have the economic power to assert your opinion of "value"
in the marketplace.

Money is also our vehicle for survival.  To procure food and fresh water
in this society, for example, we need money, or at some level at least 
need things that money can buy.

Loving someone is also a form of valuing someone, but on a more personal
level, of course.  I think it's natural to want to show those we love
that they are valued, and money enters that equation in cases like
food, shelter, and college tuition.  Money can't buy love, but it can 
buy opportunity, for ourselves or for others.

It's not uncommon to hear of people leaving those they presumably loved
to pursue money... and relatively uncommon to hear of someone giving
up all of their money in pursuit of love.  If you have money you have
[economic] power.  If you only have a good love relationship, then others
have power over you - and your loved one(s).

Just my .02...

	Sharon

    I'm 100% positive I'd take love now.. I ran into a mutual friend of my
    ex today that has kept in touch with her. She just finalized marriage
    #5 I was #1 and we divorced 4 years ago this Dec 5th! Lookout Ms Gabor
    you have competition gaining quick.
    
    -j

RE: .85
The thing I can't get past in reading ".02's" worth, is that I've
seen a lot of money squanderd in lieu of time, emotional support, and
saddest of all, love. Growing up, I had many frinds from "comfortable" 
homes. These kids were given cars as soon as they got 
a driver's license. They wore the best clothes, had everything they wanted,
and when the time came, they went to the best colleges. College is the point
in most people's lives where they reach adulthood, physically and emotionally. 
Most of my friends who were "shipped off" to college, dropped out of 
school. 

I'll admit, I have two kids of my own, and one of my goals is to see them both
through college, if they choose to go. But I hope never to subsidize an 
education in lieu of my time and emotional support, in the name of easing
my own conscience.

Several of these friends  I mentioned, got very strung out on drugs or alcohol. 
I believe that the "things" that were bought for them all their 
lives just didn't work anymore, so they looked for something else.
One friend who used to confide in me even
said "my father was never a father, he just gave me stuff, fuck him, I'll
take it when I need it, but I don't need HIM." Materially, he had all he 
needed all his life, but he's not a real happy person. 

I don't know if love can be squanderd, though.

    Re .85, very well said.  I agree completely.
    
    Re .87, I agree that children need "time & emotional support" from
    their parents as well as financial help.  Kids really need both
    from their folks if at all possible, in order to get a good start in
    life.  My daughter already has "my time & emotional support."

    As far as love being "squandered," yes, I think it can be.  I think
    it happens often.
    
    Lorna
    

    

RE: .88
This might sound sarcastic, but it's not meant that way. I mean seriously
when I ask, how do you use or spend love extravagantly or wastefully? 
Can you either explain that or give an example of squandered love? I'm thinking
love is a feeling. You can show or not show love any way you please. 
And in not showing love, are you wasting it or just missing it, with all its
pain and pleasure?

    

    
    	About 70 replies back I would have said "love", definitely, over
    	money...  but now, these days, I'm wrestling with a serious
    	decision of whether to re-located (thereby selling my house
    	to DEC and coming out well financially), or taking a new job
    	closer to home and continuing a new relationship that is
    	the best one I've EVER had.  I don't know if I really love
    	him (that's another topic meant for a different note), but
    	I care deeply for him and enjoy his company to the exclusion
    	of many of my friends.  My daughter likes him too, which is
    	a major thing for her since the divorce.
    
    	So here I am with a real-life example of love vs. money.  It's
        no wonder that I'm not sleeping well at night ;^)
    
    		sherry

>I mean seriously
>when I ask, how do you use or spend love extravagantly or wastefully? 

 When you take advantage of someone who loves you to the point where you
extinguish the fire. That, to me, is a waste of love.

 The Doctah

< Note 841.91 by WAHOO::LEVESQUE "You've crossed over the river..." >
                           -< seen it all too often >-


.91> When you take advantage of someone who loves you to the point where you
>extinguish the fire. That, to me, is a waste of love.


In that case, are you wasting love or are you rejecting love from one who 
has put coditions on what he or she is offering?

>In that case, are you wasting love or are you rejecting love from one who 
>has put coditions on what he or she is offering?

 I suppose you could call fidelity, caring and responsible behavior "conditions"
if you were so inclined... I guess in that way you could define anything to not
be wasteful.

 The Doctah

>Can you either explain that or give an example of squandered love? I'm thinking
>love is a feeling. You can show or not show love any way you please. 
>And in not showing love, are you wasting it or just missing it, with all its
>pain and pleasure?


    I think one person can spend love wastefully by continuing to give it
    to a person that is not open to receiving it. This is a waste. Not that
    your going to run out of love to give but better that you direct it
    toward someone that will welcome it (so as not to waste your energies)

    I think two people can squander an opportunity to love each other. Two
    people that deep inside love each other can squander the opportunity to
    feel that love if they continually focus their energy on what isn't 
    good in the relationship.  

    Life is to short and love to rare not to enjoy it to it's fullest 
    while you have it. Anything less is squandering it.

    Gail