William Howard 2
Well-known member
Since Dolly Freed wrote her influential book titled "Possum Living, How To Live Well Without A Job And With (almost) No Money", she became somewhat of an icon for the practice of what's called "Simple Living" - generally defined as a sort of minimalist existence based on voluntary poverty. Throughout her work she defines her own unique practice as "possum living", a metaphorical reference to the freedom and "stupidity" of the animal. But throughout her work multiple contradictions arise that warrants a closer look into her unique philosophy. For, as she says quoting Nietzsche, "Philosophize with a hammer testing idols to see if they ring true". As Dolly's philosophy has grown in popularity and its principles extorted, the hammer of investigation must be applied back to its author to examine if she, too, rings true.
The Bhagavad-Gita describes the contradiction of the life of one who renounces society to avoid it's temptations. It explains that simply not partaking in something physically does not mean that they are free from its grasp if they are still dwelling on it in there mind. Dolly's lifestyle is centered around avoiding the traps and nonsense of "civilized life." But as we will soon find out, she never actually freed herself from its grasp, and perhaps in the process even exaggerated and internalized its worse qualities in the process.
We are quickly greeted with scripture from Ecclesiastes. She writes -
"While not overly religious, we do heed the Biblical admonition that "every man should eat and drink, and enjoy the good of all his labour, it is the gift of God" (Ecclesiastes 3:13). Notice it says "God," not "GNP."
It is worthwhile mentioning that scripture is referenced exactly three times, one of Matthew and two on Ecclesiastes. While she takes these references in a piecemeal like manner, it is interesting to see her ignore the whole passage, with the famous "there is a time for everything". Throughout her writing she presents a scalding critique of society, but Ecclesiastes concluded with a sort of detached acceptance of both society's ills and also of it's benefit's. With her, we see a condemnation and utter contempt for most of society without its teleological understanding of the usefulness of Man's foulest features. Is this just a case of cherrypicking what one wants to believe? Although one might accuse me of cherrypicking as well, she plants her foundation firmly on this principle of the good life of Ecclesiastes, so wouldn't it make sense to take it as a whole? This is a minor objection, but could there be a larger problem lurking over the horizon that is more recognizable?
Dolly may embody the Capitalist mentality she so fought to be against. In chapter two, "The Cost of Living", she takes on a pseudo - Benjamin Franklin mentality of "frugality", or what Japanesse Buddhists call "calculating gains and losses". This mentality is pervasive throughout her book, for even she admits when talking about her education even -
"What would I have learned if I had stayed in school? Exactly what the slowest member of the class would have learned, because that's how they teach. And the subjects! Social studies, forsooth! And new math, where you learn all about "sets" and graduate not knowing how to balance a checkbook. And home economics, where they teach you to be as uneconomical as possible--Betty Crocker propaganda."
For what IS important for a child to learn is what is considered "economical", that is, what conveys the greatest amount of "profit" for the effort. Everything is generally through the lens of a profit motif, or gain, and such is the Utilitarian ideology that Capitalists share. Things are only useful and worthwhile if they serve a obvious immediate use.
She gives a parable to describe this Utilitarian attitude as follows, to which she explains "my type of people!" -
"We like the anecdote about the stranger in a small Vermont village. Walking down the street, he notices that the man walking ahead of him is provoking some peculiar behavior. The men glare at him or shake their fists. The women turn up their noses. The children are bustled across the street to avoid coming near him.
"What's going on?" he asks one of the villagers. "Is he a wifebeater? A drugpusher? A childmolester?''
"Nup. Dipped into his capital."
Couldn't we see parallels between her parable and the corporate drive to cut costs and be as frugal as possible?
We also see a Machiavellianesque like strategy for intimidation and working outside the law, another corporate strategy. For example, she writes -
"Visit his house late at night and do something to let him know he has an enemy who has no intention of playing the game by his rules. (If you don't know his address, look it up at the courthouse. I explained how on page 133.) Do not take a weapon or anything that could be called a weapon that you wouldn't want to discard if necessary. Go on foot. I'm going to leave it to your imagination as to what to do when you get there. However, some people say that houses have windows, and others have it that bricks may be found. And cars are often left out at night and might have their tires about them at such times. And still others say telephone lines run outside of houses and are thin. And I've heard that penknives are sharp. Don't be in a hurry--look the situation over for potential. Perhaps he has a dog, so you might want to take along some liver or meat to befriend it. If the dog is downright vicious, come back another time and poison it. It's no sin to kill a vicious animal, and it will make your adversary feel more vulnerable."
Of course she gives a disclaimer type sentence, "make sure you are in the right", but if she's half the scholar we think she is she is well aware of Plato's maximum "no man does evil knowingly". Of course people will think they are in the right! With all this slight of hand use of rhetoric, and her instance on solving problems outside of authority, it represents quite well modern corporate mentality, except today we call it "corporate jargon" when we get the runaround.
It's peculiar that the poorest and the richest share in the same mentality. With smugness she says "I'm not paying the welfare chiselers to breed like flies" when describing why they don't want to pay taxes. Very identical to the corporate wing of Republicanism we see today. They both see taxes as giving to some unworthy group, a burden, a parasite. She ironically describes herself as a "sensitive" woman, and yet she can look down on other humans as a parasite of some kind?
The case for the "possum living" as a antidote for consumerism, materialism, corporatism, is by far weak and actually embodies it's general principles of the "maximizing impulse" that accompanies so much of the business mentality that is responsible for our own modern anxieties. I think what Dolly missed was the "hidden" costs of her lifestyle, something that lurks beyond the scope of calculators and business ledgers. Survival at any cost leaves its toll on our humanity.
The Bhagavad-Gita describes the contradiction of the life of one who renounces society to avoid it's temptations. It explains that simply not partaking in something physically does not mean that they are free from its grasp if they are still dwelling on it in there mind. Dolly's lifestyle is centered around avoiding the traps and nonsense of "civilized life." But as we will soon find out, she never actually freed herself from its grasp, and perhaps in the process even exaggerated and internalized its worse qualities in the process.
We are quickly greeted with scripture from Ecclesiastes. She writes -
"While not overly religious, we do heed the Biblical admonition that "every man should eat and drink, and enjoy the good of all his labour, it is the gift of God" (Ecclesiastes 3:13). Notice it says "God," not "GNP."
It is worthwhile mentioning that scripture is referenced exactly three times, one of Matthew and two on Ecclesiastes. While she takes these references in a piecemeal like manner, it is interesting to see her ignore the whole passage, with the famous "there is a time for everything". Throughout her writing she presents a scalding critique of society, but Ecclesiastes concluded with a sort of detached acceptance of both society's ills and also of it's benefit's. With her, we see a condemnation and utter contempt for most of society without its teleological understanding of the usefulness of Man's foulest features. Is this just a case of cherrypicking what one wants to believe? Although one might accuse me of cherrypicking as well, she plants her foundation firmly on this principle of the good life of Ecclesiastes, so wouldn't it make sense to take it as a whole? This is a minor objection, but could there be a larger problem lurking over the horizon that is more recognizable?
Dolly may embody the Capitalist mentality she so fought to be against. In chapter two, "The Cost of Living", she takes on a pseudo - Benjamin Franklin mentality of "frugality", or what Japanesse Buddhists call "calculating gains and losses". This mentality is pervasive throughout her book, for even she admits when talking about her education even -
"What would I have learned if I had stayed in school? Exactly what the slowest member of the class would have learned, because that's how they teach. And the subjects! Social studies, forsooth! And new math, where you learn all about "sets" and graduate not knowing how to balance a checkbook. And home economics, where they teach you to be as uneconomical as possible--Betty Crocker propaganda."
For what IS important for a child to learn is what is considered "economical", that is, what conveys the greatest amount of "profit" for the effort. Everything is generally through the lens of a profit motif, or gain, and such is the Utilitarian ideology that Capitalists share. Things are only useful and worthwhile if they serve a obvious immediate use.
She gives a parable to describe this Utilitarian attitude as follows, to which she explains "my type of people!" -
"We like the anecdote about the stranger in a small Vermont village. Walking down the street, he notices that the man walking ahead of him is provoking some peculiar behavior. The men glare at him or shake their fists. The women turn up their noses. The children are bustled across the street to avoid coming near him.
"What's going on?" he asks one of the villagers. "Is he a wifebeater? A drugpusher? A childmolester?''
"Nup. Dipped into his capital."
Couldn't we see parallels between her parable and the corporate drive to cut costs and be as frugal as possible?
We also see a Machiavellianesque like strategy for intimidation and working outside the law, another corporate strategy. For example, she writes -
"Visit his house late at night and do something to let him know he has an enemy who has no intention of playing the game by his rules. (If you don't know his address, look it up at the courthouse. I explained how on page 133.) Do not take a weapon or anything that could be called a weapon that you wouldn't want to discard if necessary. Go on foot. I'm going to leave it to your imagination as to what to do when you get there. However, some people say that houses have windows, and others have it that bricks may be found. And cars are often left out at night and might have their tires about them at such times. And still others say telephone lines run outside of houses and are thin. And I've heard that penknives are sharp. Don't be in a hurry--look the situation over for potential. Perhaps he has a dog, so you might want to take along some liver or meat to befriend it. If the dog is downright vicious, come back another time and poison it. It's no sin to kill a vicious animal, and it will make your adversary feel more vulnerable."
Of course she gives a disclaimer type sentence, "make sure you are in the right", but if she's half the scholar we think she is she is well aware of Plato's maximum "no man does evil knowingly". Of course people will think they are in the right! With all this slight of hand use of rhetoric, and her instance on solving problems outside of authority, it represents quite well modern corporate mentality, except today we call it "corporate jargon" when we get the runaround.
It's peculiar that the poorest and the richest share in the same mentality. With smugness she says "I'm not paying the welfare chiselers to breed like flies" when describing why they don't want to pay taxes. Very identical to the corporate wing of Republicanism we see today. They both see taxes as giving to some unworthy group, a burden, a parasite. She ironically describes herself as a "sensitive" woman, and yet she can look down on other humans as a parasite of some kind?
The case for the "possum living" as a antidote for consumerism, materialism, corporatism, is by far weak and actually embodies it's general principles of the "maximizing impulse" that accompanies so much of the business mentality that is responsible for our own modern anxieties. I think what Dolly missed was the "hidden" costs of her lifestyle, something that lurks beyond the scope of calculators and business ledgers. Survival at any cost leaves its toll on our humanity.
