On Being Rich

I am in support of this statement, "The Rich man is not he who has the most but he who needs the least."

Why? Let's see, shall we?

First off, from a rational economic perspective, the ability to acquire and objects that we can possibly acquire are limited and finite in nature whereas our desire and greed is limitless. So there is a fundamental mismatch.

When we look at the statement closely, we see the word, "need". Are we operating from a self-knowing position? Do we know our needs from our wants? We often do not know the distinction and thus compound our "needS" and in turn have to possess more and more.

When we think of possession, I wonder if we do actually even possess anything? I understand possession to mean to own or have ownership of things or people. We apply the "my" to these possessions and they enter into our realm of control, exclusivity and access.

Ultimately, I realized that possession is never permanent. So we can never truly possess anything. We shall begin by analyzing various ways that we can come into possession.

We can possess objects by way of force. Then whoever is stronger will possess it. So possession is not permanent because we cannot be the strongest permanently.

We can possess them by legality. Laws are rules of the game, placed by a legitimate authority and supported by force. Laws are amendable in their nature and so possession is yet again not permanent.

Objects, in their essence, deny permanence of possession since all objects are perishable.

With regards to Objects, even if we are in permanent possession of them, they still remain external to us. They do not add meaning to us, only layers at best.

What about people?

All people definitely deny possession in the simple fact that they are subjects with a unique will and not objects. We cannot have or possess anyone. When we are involved with another person, we are sharing of each other. More aptly, we are in a state of temporary interaction and engagement with each other.

The degree of exclusivity and access and terms of interaction then inform the nature of the relationship.

Why would our "possession" of people also be temporary in nature?

Firstly, as physical beings, we are perishable and even in the exercise of our wills (As it may change)

Secondly, we cannot effect the way in which another chooses to enact his/her will. We can attempt to condition it but this is ethically questionable.

So we have determined that we are never in true possession of anything. We now move on to investigate how does one then make himself Rich and to need the least?

Be self-knowing. Identify and distinguish between wants and needs.

Understand that since the external possessions are impermanent, the internal dimension is of greater gravity. So I ask, can we possess an internal dimension that is of permanence and exclusively our's?

Though it is true that conditions and externalities can influence the wavering/change of our inner dimension, at least we are in greater control and have the best access to our inner dimension, thus we are most able to possess and own it.

Practice self-management. Manage one's own perspective, state of mind and attitude.

Be appreciative. It is often hard to be appreciative because we compare. And this comes from our competitive drive. But the value that we place upon things are often informed by social conditioning. What's more, we already understand that the inner dimension is of greater gravity since all externals are impermanent and do not add onto us.

SO if we look inwards, does the competitive spirit still have a chance to make appreciation difficult? Ultimately, from the viewpoint of a moral-realist, Self-comparison is desirable as it serves as a mode of self-assessment and yard-sticking. However, it should be conducted in a positive spirit and desire for betterment. Also, since the subject of comparison is one's own self, the scope of betterment spans into infinity.