Postmodern Speaking. Live better
I will share my experience. ... The dialogue looks like this:
- Everything (listing the specifics) is bad, but it should be good (everything should be on averagetwice as much)
from the comments)
When studying certain phenomena that have a dimension, it is very useful to find on the graph their minimum and maximum values - the boundary conditions. Without this, it is often impossible to understand their nature, that is, the reasons, the bases and their place in general. For example, some strength calculations of structures are carried out: loads are determined at which the structure is guaranteed to collapse, and the sections are calculated from this. And finding a real cause of a phenomenon goes well when considering a situation in which the phenomenon is completely absent, is zero - zero factors will be the causes.
This is also the phenomenon called"We want to live better". Immediately it is clear that we are talking about measurable, but it is absolutely not clear what exactly it is equal to. The author of the above quote was able to intuitively but very accurately estimate the size of this “better”.And I will try to bring a theoretical basis for this assessment. And, I think, this will clarify today's understanding of these words in our beloved postmodern with you.
Any comparison can be one of two types: relative or absolute.
Let's face it - each of us would like tolive better.Better than ... who? Or how much better?
It is enough to ask these two simple questions to a disgruntled citizen, and he becomes thoughtful. At this moment a chain of answers flashes in his head, subsequent questions, again answers, again questions ... And she leads in a bad direction. But this happens associatively on a subconscious level, it just creates some kind of unpleasant trick sensation. And on the conscious level there is no ready answer, because the citizen never specifically thought about this.
In this case, the citizen turns not to logical thinking, not to analysis - this is a long and energy-intensive matter for the brain, the brain tries not to practice this unnecessarily. Citizen refers to the accumulated libraries of ready-made answers. And this is not his own, it is derived from the information field in which a person is located, from the discourses imposed on him.
And he can give you something like: "as in a developed country." The answer is meaningless. Developed countries do not exist, it is a false entity. It also remains unclear whether this person wants to move to other conditions and live according to those conditions, or he wants to create new conditions around himself and reap the benefits, or to individually acquire new qualities while maintaining the conditions.
It should be understood that the meaninglessness of the response is visible only to an external observer (and not to everyone), for the subject himself this answer is quite sensible and sound, because it does not contradict his system of sensations. Flags with pluses and minuses are in the right order. But the external origin and the imposition of discourses, according to which these flags are thrown up, are not visible or indifferent. For him, this is his own beliefs, he may even think that he himself came to them because of common sense.
If we continue to try this citizen, asking him a question after a question, then something like this will become clear.
A dissatisfied citizen wants this “better” at the same time both relatively and absolutely.There is already a rather big contradiction. Roughly speaking, it is not enough for him to be rich, he wants to be even richer than someone.And the desire to be richer than someone does not exclude an additional list of benefits.
But we will not fall behind and continue to look for the essence. And it will be revealed to us that at the beginning of the beginnings lies a relative comparison.And the base of this comparison is this citizen himself in his current state.First of all, he wants "liveit is better"Myself. And here we come to the lower boundary condition. The person whom everything suits now, does not want the best. I suppose there are few of them. And the billionaire wants to make a new billion, and the homeless would like a basement more comfortable.
From this perspective, it becomes obvious that the argument of comparing the well-being of a citizen with someone poorer will not be weighty for him. Everyone reading this text lives right now better than at least five billion people, and? - And this is not meaningful to you in your desire "liveit is better».
Another direct consequence is that a citizen will always look for a basis for relative comparison where he considers welfare to be obviously the best. Characteristically, any absolute increase in his personal well-being in the general case will entail only a change of guideline, he will find a new base of comparison and remain dissatisfied.
This is comparable to the “bad roads” effect. Interview people on the streets, 9 out of 10 will say that we have “bad roads”. And then take the genie from the bottle, and let it improve the quality of all roads twice. Conduct a new survey, and it turns out that nothing has changed - the same 9 out of 10 will say that “the roads are bad”. Why? After all, as the road was worse than this, it remained.
In this place we will hang up a rhetorical question in the air: “And on what basis do you, a citizen, decide that you must live no worse than a Swede or a Swiss?”absolute ratinghis "better." And psychology here will sparkle with colors even brighter!
We look at the lower boundary. Let's say a citizen wants to buy an electric kettle. That is in his understanding and means "to live better." But the way to gaining a teapot is so simple, understandable and not long enough that such a citizen will not be considered a better life. Why? - Yes, simply because it is entirely within his power, that it depends only on himself. And this is not a conditional teapot, it can be in different cases a fur coat, car, villa by the sea.
It is important. This is the real bottom line “I want to live better”. It is not zero, “I do not need anything,” it starts from the mark “I cannot achieve this on my own.”Funny?
And now the upper limit.After all, we are asking a question in which we have no limits. Wish anything! We do not prohibit a citizen to desire a marble palace, forty concubines and a golden toilet. But he will not give us that answer. This will not be serious. And who determines the seriousness? - He himself. He himself sets the upper limit of his desires.
The question is on what grounds he defined this boundary. The answer is:"I deserve it.". And this is the mightiest discourse in his head, from which very much flows in the present reality.
There is a subtle point. All this "it is better"Which he"worthy of"Should come to himwhile maintaining all other conditions.
If a person has ambitions to climb the social ladder, then he will receive in the performance and a corresponding improvement in welfare. It does not matter if this is his main goal of recovery or he needs to raise the status as such. And the person considers it achievable for himself. That is, below the border "liveit is better". Even if such an opportunity is tightly closed for him, despite all the efforts, then the ascension itself will be the desire. And this is outside the discourse "I deserve it», Because this discourse does not imply a rational reason for this, and the desire for growth must always have an internal justification (it does not matter, it is so real).
Thus, our citizen wants to “live better” while maintaining his own place in the social stratum. And everything else too: the amount of labor, the quality of labor, own skills, knowledge. He believes that simply out of the blue should “live better” without any efforts of its own.
But in his subconscious mind, this is an interesting chemistry. He understands that wanting more, doing nothing for it ... as if not very justified and somehow ugly. Here the deeper old ones come into play (but not the strongest, they do not control, but only correct) layers of beliefs. "Without work, you can not pull the fish out of the pond" and so on.
This thing limits and fixes the absolute value of the wishes of the citizen.
Just at the level of "twice as much as it is now».
And, returning to the question hanging, we note that the reason is the same. A citizen thinks like this: “I sell in a mobile phone shop, and a Swiss man sells in a mobile phone shop, but this Swiss has a pay of five times more. I want to live like this Swiss. ”That is, a citizen thinks about“ living better ”with the preservation of all conditions. And if you bargain with him a little, he will agree to live as a conditional Spanish seller of phones with a salaryexactly twice its size. He will not categorically insist on "five times more!" He will evaluate himself "realistically."
So. “To live better” means to live better than today’s self, twice without making any effort.