It’s true, beloved readers, that long weeks have passed since I last graced Blogger with my “ecopinions”. Spring break is entering its death throes, and although I didn’t spend it en la playa chugging muchas cervezas whilst ogling las chicas borrachas in hopes that their mannequinesqe figures will provide some sort of lasting satisfaction if only we performed intoxicated sexual intercourse, I did manage to fufill a few promises I made to myself.

“How,” you ask?

By giving up!

In the fortnight past, I reduced my alcohol intake to an almost negligible amount, eliminated impulse purchases and useless food, and completely left cigarrettes behind (speaking of which, buying Natural American Spirit – a favorite of the anti-corporate crowd – pays the Man at R.J. Reynolds). Meeting these goals removes some of the barriers seperating me from my partner, Earth.

In an ongoing effort to reduce overconsuption, I emphasize the importance of priviliege in the human equation, which indeed is influencing the envrionment. This entry, I turn the lens of spirituality on these issues in an attempt to debunk the implied existential value of

consumption.

what is the self?

To begin, let’s examine what self is. It’s important, so bear with me!

Most people, at least westerners, see their bodies as being a part of their selves. Correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe a positivist would stop at that, considering the brain is itself a part of the body. Besides strictly scientific views, a number of popular metaphysical terms exist to further explain the self: soul, mind, spirit, heart. However, I’d like to frame the self in a cosmic, or outside-in, perspective. The individual is the material and the immaterial experience and/or experiencer within that material. By these parameters, life beyond humans contains self, too. Got it? Perfect!

Now I’d love to go on and on about how and why overconsumption is broadcast as a pleasurable and satisfying end, but this is specifically geared toward the experience, and what it means for the self.

The outward display of our inner self for the purpose of social orientation is called one’s image. Thus, a projected image isn’t really a reflection of our true being — so if the things we buy generally end up feeding our image rather than feeding our selves, we aren’t really experiencing satisfaction. A buzzword tossed around for a wee bit over a century to describe this is “conspicuous consumption”. Although it specifically speaks towards ostentatious, class related spending, I venture to guess that any visible consumption is conspicuous; consumer choices can be categorized, made into an identity. Even lower-class, traditionally marginalized demographics purchase or possess things that convey an image in place of self. Perhaps consumption, in the image sense, isn’t necessary.

But then:

What must we consume? I pause before answering to preface that consume implies a producer and monetary involvement somewhere in the picture. So, in answering, I say consumption is not necessary. BUT, we must eat, drink water, sleep, evacuate waste, and regulate our temperature to keep on havin’ a self! I confess, in today’s situation you must consume these things to survive unless you can live radically self-sufficient (which often violates standing laws!). Yet, even the most essential things have easily recognizable brand names.

My greatest pleasures lie not in times when I spent money, but I enjoyed what I had in that moment. I say the richest wealth one may achieve is through consuming as little as possible, yet have health to experience as much as possible simultaneously. The most wholesome elements for my-self, my spirit, are free. It’s just the food system thing that bothers me now.