[MD] Ham & swiss cheese

[Dan Glover]

Hello everyone

>From: Heather Perella <spiritualadirondack at yahoo.com>
>Reply-To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
>To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
>Subject: Re: [MD] Ham & swiss cheese
>Date: Sun, 5 Mar 2006 07:12:40 -0800 (PST)
>
>Dan,
>
>      I guess I'm not done, because for some reason
>maybe both of us are not trying to understand the
>other person.  You are stuck on this idea that
>everybody can be wealthy.  Maybe everybody can be
>wealthy and have all this wealth you dream about at
>night.  Maybe we all can live comfortably and have
>enough wealth to the point where none of us have to
>work as much.  Don't you think people will still have
>to work those long hours to produce those wealthy
>things you want so much?

Hi SA

I think it all depends upon a person's goals in life. There was a time when 
my goal was to have plenty of time to spend with my family. That's changed. 
Now my goal is to grow wealth. I don't want anything however so you've 
misinterpreted where I'm coming from.

>       I said:  "So don't we need people to clean hotel
>rooms, houses, garbage, etc..."
>
>      Dan said:  "That isn't true. Again, remember who
>you're talking to. One of my businesses consists of
>cleaning up after people. It doesn't matter if they're
>rich or poor...people make messes. It's wonderful! It
>never stops!"
>
>      Are you misunderstanding me a lot or something?

Yes I misread your sentence. Sorry.

>I said we do need people to clean hotel rooms, houses,
>garbage, etc...  This idea of diversification that
>everybody can do.  How much does each person in this
>culture need to diversify until we are all satisfied
>with what we have?

I'm quite satisfied with what I have now. My home is paid for. I have no 
outstanding debt. I live very frugally by choice. I don't care for fast cars 
and fancy clothes. I don't own a tv. I prefer simple pleasures to expensive 
vacations. I don't gamble, drink, do drugs, or chase loose women. But that's 
just me.

The idea of diversification, now that is just the tip of a very large 
iceberg of information on wealth building floating around out there. What 
satisfies me may not satisfy you so I encourage you to do some research on 
your own.

I think this is an individual choice.

>Take these questions as questions.
>  Wealthy is subjective to how much wealth is enough.
>If I compare myself to say you I might not be as
>wealthy.  You to Bill Gates and you're (look I spelled
>it right, does that make you happy?) not going to be
>seen as wealthy.  It's relative.  You like to think
>I'm complaining and sometimes I do, but don't take
>this question as a complaint.

My goal is not to become the richest man in the world. My goal is simply to 
become financially independent. Whether I'm seen as wealthy, well, I just 
don't care. No one who knows me in real life thinks of me as being wealthy. 
I live in a 125 year old house (paid for, mind you) and though I own 
several, my favorite vehicle to drive on a daily basis is a '95 Dodge Ram 
pickup truck. Check out "The Millionaire Next Door" by Thomas Stanley and 
you'll get the idea.

>
>      I said:  "Yet, in this culture will they get as
>much money as the person we signs their paychecks and
>also rents apartments over here for those people to
>live in, which he/she gets that money back to play the
>stock market and build a whole chain of fast food
>restaurants, just to diversify, and on and on.  Your
>not making logical sense."
>
>      Dan said:  "But at least I know the difference
>between your and you're!"
>
>      Are you happy that I did it correctly above?

No. Just kidding.

>  By
>the way, did you dodge this or what?

But negates, so no, I didn't dodge the question. You simply didn't 
understand the answer.

>
>      Dan said:  "Some of my clients are rich, some are
>not. I market to everyone."
>
>      Good for you.  I think I was just generalizing,
>but I guess you felt like saying this.

I thought it a very salient point to make. But never mind.

>
>      Dan said:  "Please tell me where I said you could
>leave behind your duties and expect to be rich. You
>need to please pay attention. I talked about
>developing multiple streams of income, not quiting
>your duties."
>
>      I guess you think everybody can be wealthy.  I
>guess you think there is no limit to each person being
>wealthy and thus this culture could be egalitarian.
>You think this culture could (1) be changed or (2) be
>lived up to a potential that it is not actively
>partaking with.  Think of philosophy as a thought
>exercise don't get all emotional with me and start to
>think I'm complaining - ok?  (Yes, I have complained
>as I have stated, but it is a lack of understanding on
>my part.  Don't get emotional and frustrated with me.
>Let's just think this through.  Maybe you've got
>something here and I am blind to it - ok?)

I guess I didn't realize I was getting all emotional. Thank you for pointing 
that out. Next thing you know I'll be busting out in song. Gotta watch it. 
If you see me smiling, pinch me quick.

Anyway, as I explained previously, culture will not change. We have to. I 
know everyone can't be wealthy. I'm not some kind of Pollyanna. What I am 
trying to explain to you is that there are steps a person, any person, can 
take to build wealth if they so desire. If you don't care, fine, no problem.

>
>      I said:  "There will be poor and rich in this
>culture except it, or do you question this static
>pattern and think it could change?"
>
>      Dan said:  "I prefer being wealthy to being poor.
>You are free to make your own choice."
>
>      So (1) you don't believe this static quality of
>the current U.S. culture, as to wealth, is here due to
>not choice, in other words if all people in this
>culture wanted to they could choose to be wealthy.

I don't understand your question. Please restate it.

>(2)  If all did choose to be wealthy then it would
>happen according to what you are saying.

There are specific steps to follow if one desires to build wealth, yes. I 
know from experience though that not everyone is up to the challenge. In 
fact, probably less than 5% of the population has the gumption to go for it, 
even if they're coached. I don't concern myself with those numbers though. 
In theory, everyone can grow wealth if they so desire. What you call desire 
and what the 5% call desire are 2 different states, however, as long as 
you're not part of that 5%.

>(3)  You
>depend on some people not choosing to choose wealth
>for wealth to exist for the people who do choose
>wealth.

I depend on no one but myself, a hard learned lesson btw.

>(4)  You believe in an egalitarian culture.
>Which one or multiple ones maybe do you think or is it
>something else?

Not sure what this means. Perhaps you could elaborate if you want an answer.

>
>      Dan said:  "What have you offered me other than
>insults? Now, tell me, who is being compassionate?"
>
>      When did I insult you?  I know you think I'm
>crabby, but who said that you or me?  Maybe you're
>right - I am crabby at times.  I'm not here to duel
>with you.

Ok.

>
>      Dan said:  "You came here complaining and I
>attempted to
>suggest an alternative."
>
>      Again, is your alternative diversifying income
>for wealth or is it to write paragraphs about how I
>complain and suffer you or is it both or have we moved
>passed this?

My alternative is action as opposed to the passivity of complaint.

>
>      Dan said:  "Maybe you don't think I am listening
>because what I am saying isn't what you expect to
>hear. You want someone to commiserate with you, right?
>I'm sure you can find plenty of that from other people
>but not from me."
>
>      What I meant by not listening was a miss on my
>part to your philosophy which I understand now is
>diversify income and everybody will have wealth and we
>will live in an egalitarian culture.  Right?

Not really. I'm not concerned with an egalitarian culture and everyone being 
wealthy. That seems to be your dream. I simply stated that if a person 
desires wealth, there are ways to build it. That's all. I cannot be 
concerned with saving the world. It's not that I don't care, I know my 
limitations though.
>
>      I said:  "What is the difference between rich and
>wealthy that you talk about?  I didn't know we were
>talking about two things here."
>
>      Dan said:  "This is something you're going to
>have to learn yourself. But I assure you, we are
>talking about two different things."
>
>      I guess it's a secret until I know the secret
>then it won't be a secret anymore.

It is no secret. But it is like trying to explain a book to someone who's 
never read it. It is much easier just to hand the book to them. If you make 
a decision to educate yourself, then perhaps you'll understand.

>
>      I said:  "What is the difference between zazen
>and meditation to you?  To me they are the same."
>
>      Dan said:  "Meditation concerns holding an image
>in the mind's eye. Zazen, nothingness; emptiness."
>
>      From the way I understand zazen is in part from
>Master Shunryu Suzuki in a book complied from his
>talks by his disciples titled, "Zen Mind, Beginner's
>Mind" who was a direct spiritual descendant of Dogen.
>He interchangeably uses meditation and zazen.  He even
>says while doing zazen and you have a problem then you
>have a problem this is zazen and when you don't, you
>don't this is zazen.  I don't know where you found a
>difference between meditation and zazen.  From the way
>I understand zazen, zazen is to be done all day and
>night.  Sure you could just sit their, and that is
>proper practice, but practice does not stop while you
>sit.  It continues while you wash dishes and type on
>the computer.  It is an exercise continually
>sharpened.  Zen is applied to bow and arrows.  This is
>popular Zen practice as well.  Tea ceremony and flower
>arrangement and so forth.  Zazen is sitting, but when
>you sit in zazen and leave from sitting the point of
>zazen practice is to perform zazen even when you leave
>from sitting.  This is the concentration of the zazen
>practice.  This is Zen.  There are no differences in
>Zen, thus, no differences in zazen.

You seem to know a great deal about zen and it's clear there is nothing I 
can add. I know nothing, nothing at all. I don't read about zen, never have. 
I practice, that's all. In my practice, zazen and meditation are different. 
If they are the same in yours, fine. I wiil give you and Master Suzuki no 
argument.

>
>      Dan I am not bent on being right and thus
>somebody has to be wrong.  I am more concerned on
>being accurate.  Sorry if I came or come across in a
>way that is disturbing, that is not my intention.
>
>      Larz said:  "Dan, you are the man.  Your last
>dance with Tarzan was perfect.  Thanks."
>
>      I'm glad I could embolden your man
>(testosterone), meaning you Larz.  I am not wrestling
>for a win by me, just a win by us, even you Larz.
>Thanks.

I don't understand what you're trying to win. Is there a context going on 
that I'm unaware of? Here I'm just sitting here shooting the shit in my 
underwear. If I knew it was a context I would have put on my good suit...

>
>      Dan I guess I keep coming back to this discussion
>for accuracy's sake.  I might not have a full
>understanding of the world and your philosophy does
>come from a different angle, but I am making an effort
>to be open-minded and will make an effort to at least
>understand your experience.  I do not want to leave
>this discussion with confusion in our dust as we
>depart.  Again I apologize if I came off as somebody
>who seemed to be distant from your perspective.

It's okay, no need to apologize. It's not my philosophy and no one has a 
full understanding of the world, least of all me. If what I say doesn't make 
sense, then ignore it. I don't feel a need to convince anyone of anything.

Thank you for your reply,

Dan