Identity and the Use of Money
As mentioned before, I consider Animality = Instinctivity minus Rationality and Hypoanimality = Rationality minus Instinctivity. I assume that hypoanimality makes people perceive themselves as having the identity of individuals in exchange with their social environment, while animality makes people perceive themselves as being an part of something superior above themselves, prescribing their roles as perceived by instinctive urges. They have an identity determined by perceiving themselves as particles. From now on, I call this the particle identity in contrast to the individualistic identity.
Due to the requirement of survival in a difficult environment, and even more in the complexity of modern life, one person cannot acquire enough skills to be completely self-sufficient in providing for his own shelter, food and other basic needs. Survival depends on a division of labor in the form of distributed skills of several or many people.
For egalitarian people with the individualistic identity, division of labor means a specialization of skills, and a fair exchange of the products of the skills. Egalitarian people do not demand chores from others, because they feel themselves too good to do these chores themselves. They sell the product of their particular skill to those, who cannot produce it themselves due to lacking the skill and or the tools and means for the production.
For animalistic people having the particle identity and who are driven by the hierarchy instinct, division of labor means to gain power over the product of others, in disregard of their skills. They are in the possession of a rank in the hierarchy of the fittest, they feel justified by the acquisition of the resources for the survival of the own progeny. They feel as much submissive to those higher in the hierarchy as they feel entitled to take advantage of those below them. They feel entitled to have their position, because they were able to attain it. They attribute the institution of the hierarchy as given by a deity or nature or some other higher power. The higher power justifies the hierarchy of servants and masters.
For these two identities, money has a fundamentally different meaning. In the egalitarian concept, money is a unit to calculate, what is a fair deal. Two equal partners agree upon a price, when they bargain, or someone determines a price of his product, and the other can buy it or not.
In the hierarchical concept, money is power, and paying by condescension, what one is willing to pay, is experiencing this power. On a small scale, giving tips is an example. In German, tips are called 'Trinkgeld', which means drinking money. It was giving money to the underlings to allow them to get drunk. In the moment of giving a tip, the tipping person puts himself momentarily into the role of a master higher in the hierarchy than the servant, who receives. It is a humiliation, even though most people receiving tips probably do not perceive it as such. They are considered so low, that they are not partners working for a price, that they are allowed to fix themselves. They are just thrown at the amount, that the whim of the temporary master considers as right.
Two examples:
1. A hungry person not at home has several options.
He can go to a supermarket, get the food from the shelf, carry it to the cashier and pay a predetermined sum. He can go to a self-service place, carry the food himself to a table and clear the table himself. Also here he pays a predetermined sum. In both scenarios, he pays for the food and for the wages of those, who make it possible for him to eat. They are not his servants, but his partners in supplying food for his needs.
But he could go instead into a restaurant. Here he sits at a table, and orders food to be served right under his nose. The word ORDER says it all. He does not buy food, he becomes the master ordering it. The servants are called waiters, it sounds nicer, but it makes no difference, they are just temporary servants. The work of those servants it not valued enough to have a price determined in advance, they get a tip thrown at them depending on the generosity and condescension of the temporary master.
2. There is AAA in the USA, ADAC in Germany and so on. They have those helpers for drivers with car trouble. I needed them a few times, and I admired the skill and magic they did on my old cars. For me, it was unthinkable to even consider for one moment to call one of those skillful specialists for something as trivial as a flat tire. I took it for granted that anybody driving a car and not being able to change a tire was considered as dumb and laughed at by most people.
Great was my amazement, when in my presence somebody not only called the car helpers to change his flat tire, but did not allow me to do it. Since I had changed tires often enough, it would have been easier and faster than waiting like helpless dummies for rescue. I felt ashamed not to do it myself, but the owner of the car felt, that as he is paying, he is entitled not to get his fingers dirty but to have someone become his temporary servant and do the dirty work for him.
A bit simplified, people with the identity of egalitarian individuals use money to buy, what they cannot produce themselves. People with the identity of particles in a hierarchy use money to buy the superiority over temporary servants, they buy power over people.
As mentioned before in earlier entries, on a big scale, the rich countries dictate the low prices of the products of the poor countries, and once the hierarchy is established, they condescend to give back a fraction of what they had usurped before, and they call it charity and developmental aid. Giving tips on a small scale is based on the same unfair principle as is giving charity and developmental aid on a big scale to poor countries.
As mentioned before, I consider Animality = Instinctivity minus Rationality and Hypoanimality = Rationality minus Instinctivity. I assume that hypoanimality makes people perceive themselves as having the identity of individuals in exchange with their social environment, while animality makes people perceive themselves as being an part of something superior above themselves, prescribing their roles as perceived by instinctive urges. They have an identity determined by perceiving themselves as particles. From now on, I call this the particle identity in contrast to the individualistic identity.
Due to the requirement of survival in a difficult environment, and even more in the complexity of modern life, one person cannot acquire enough skills to be completely self-sufficient in providing for his own shelter, food and other basic needs. Survival depends on a division of labor in the form of distributed skills of several or many people.
For egalitarian people with the individualistic identity, division of labor means a specialization of skills, and a fair exchange of the products of the skills. Egalitarian people do not demand chores from others, because they feel themselves too good to do these chores themselves. They sell the product of their particular skill to those, who cannot produce it themselves due to lacking the skill and or the tools and means for the production.
For animalistic people having the particle identity and who are driven by the hierarchy instinct, division of labor means to gain power over the product of others, in disregard of their skills. They are in the possession of a rank in the hierarchy of the fittest, they feel justified by the acquisition of the resources for the survival of the own progeny. They feel as much submissive to those higher in the hierarchy as they feel entitled to take advantage of those below them. They feel entitled to have their position, because they were able to attain it. They attribute the institution of the hierarchy as given by a deity or nature or some other higher power. The higher power justifies the hierarchy of servants and masters.
For these two identities, money has a fundamentally different meaning. In the egalitarian concept, money is a unit to calculate, what is a fair deal. Two equal partners agree upon a price, when they bargain, or someone determines a price of his product, and the other can buy it or not.
In the hierarchical concept, money is power, and paying by condescension, what one is willing to pay, is experiencing this power. On a small scale, giving tips is an example. In German, tips are called 'Trinkgeld', which means drinking money. It was giving money to the underlings to allow them to get drunk. In the moment of giving a tip, the tipping person puts himself momentarily into the role of a master higher in the hierarchy than the servant, who receives. It is a humiliation, even though most people receiving tips probably do not perceive it as such. They are considered so low, that they are not partners working for a price, that they are allowed to fix themselves. They are just thrown at the amount, that the whim of the temporary master considers as right.
Two examples:
1. A hungry person not at home has several options.
He can go to a supermarket, get the food from the shelf, carry it to the cashier and pay a predetermined sum. He can go to a self-service place, carry the food himself to a table and clear the table himself. Also here he pays a predetermined sum. In both scenarios, he pays for the food and for the wages of those, who make it possible for him to eat. They are not his servants, but his partners in supplying food for his needs.
But he could go instead into a restaurant. Here he sits at a table, and orders food to be served right under his nose. The word ORDER says it all. He does not buy food, he becomes the master ordering it. The servants are called waiters, it sounds nicer, but it makes no difference, they are just temporary servants. The work of those servants it not valued enough to have a price determined in advance, they get a tip thrown at them depending on the generosity and condescension of the temporary master.
2. There is AAA in the USA, ADAC in Germany and so on. They have those helpers for drivers with car trouble. I needed them a few times, and I admired the skill and magic they did on my old cars. For me, it was unthinkable to even consider for one moment to call one of those skillful specialists for something as trivial as a flat tire. I took it for granted that anybody driving a car and not being able to change a tire was considered as dumb and laughed at by most people.
Great was my amazement, when in my presence somebody not only called the car helpers to change his flat tire, but did not allow me to do it. Since I had changed tires often enough, it would have been easier and faster than waiting like helpless dummies for rescue. I felt ashamed not to do it myself, but the owner of the car felt, that as he is paying, he is entitled not to get his fingers dirty but to have someone become his temporary servant and do the dirty work for him.
A bit simplified, people with the identity of egalitarian individuals use money to buy, what they cannot produce themselves. People with the identity of particles in a hierarchy use money to buy the superiority over temporary servants, they buy power over people.
As mentioned before in earlier entries, on a big scale, the rich countries dictate the low prices of the products of the poor countries, and once the hierarchy is established, they condescend to give back a fraction of what they had usurped before, and they call it charity and developmental aid. Giving tips on a small scale is based on the same unfair principle as is giving charity and developmental aid on a big scale to poor countries.
