by Martin Anton Smith martinantonsmith@gmail.com

Proposition: I quit my job to change my life & then I became poorer financially, & experienced hardship due to this fact.

But I became happier & more content in my personal life. Did I make a mistake? Or did I make a wise decision?

The materialist onlooker says I made a BIG mistake.

The spiritual viewer – though not mercenarily or necessarily a religious one – says I got it right BIGTIME.

So, who is right? Are both the spiritual viewer and materialist onlooker, right?

Let me expand on the idea more loquaciously in more detail, and perhaps an answer can emerge.

If I get if rich in “Life Choice A” the materialist says ‘I’m right’, and adds with a mixture of excitement & hopefulness “will you come to dinner, with my wife in the foothills”.

If I then become Poor in “Life Choice B” the materialist says “Do I know you?” and certainly doesn’t say “will you come to dinner, with my wife in the foothills”

If I then grow to become rich in “Life choice B” the materialist forgets his poor memory of prior & says I was a genius all along, and he “always knew I’d get rich”. He then adds with a mixture of excitement & hopefulness “will you come to dinner, with my wife in the foothills”

The spiritualist of course invites me to his shack on the flat with the reverse financial polarity of the foothills man.

But in doing so – isn’t he also just as much as a “snob” as the man in the foothills? For if the spiritualist is genuinely a “higher consciousness” than that of foothills man, he should also invite the rich to his shack on the flat. For at worse he can understand the foolish materialist better? Would he also not jump at the chance to enlighten the foothills man?

And could I also not say the same of the ‘foothills man’? If he was a true “prophet of materialism” should he not also invite the poor spiritualist for the same opportunity to save him?

This rarely seems to happen – if it did, we’d live in a much better place for the compromise that would inevitably occur.

I call such diplomatic meetings “Summits for Polar Opposites”.

They are full of untapped positive potential, but also, I must admit if tempers and alcohol flair – could end with fisticuffs.

if all goes well:

By dinners end the unspiritual materialist would have his rough diamonds polished into lenses that allow him to see more of life’s non-financial value. He will admit that it is as ‘real’ as his very real Rolex.

By dinners end the spiritualist would have his old dirty glasses polished into diamonds that allow him to pay his rent more easily. He will admit that it is as ‘real’ as his very real copy of Das Capital.

If All goes badly however and fisticuffs fly – the foothills man has the upper hand regardless of location. If he is at the foothills dwelling his private security will beat the spiritualist guest up, and the police will summarily and swiftly arrive to beat him a second time & then remove him & throw him in jail. The next day they will undoubtably successfully charge him with battery.

If the foothills man is a guest at the spiritualist’s shack on the flat and things go badly, the fight will not be of much consequence – for neither are good fighters. But the foothills man will see the potential in the real estate value of the shack on the flat still & charges of battery & then a civil charge so to acquire the land. It being a fact taht we live in a rich-mans-world – the Spiritualist will lose surely his shack in the court settlement.

Thus, in this analysis what should each party do? What is their dominant strategy given they do not know whether the ‘Summits for Polar Opposites’ will result in ‘Smile filled Philosophical Compromise’ or ‘frenzied fisticuffs?’.

The Foothills man should only agree to go to the Summit if he is a guest at the Spiritual man’s Shack on the flat; The Poor Spiritualist should never agree to meeting the “foothills man” for in either case he could end up in Jail & with a conviction, and in one case will lose his shack on the flat and thus risk be thrown into homelessness.

There is of course a third option, which can rescue the situation entirely:

Both parties the ‘foothills man’ & the ‘spiritualist’ can hold the ‘Summit for Polar Opposites’ remotely via telephone, email, instant messaging or teleconference – thereby erasing the destructive potential of the alternate timeline option of the physically held Summit, with its risks of amplified polar opposite positions, fisticuffs & associated black eyes & torn clothing & one-sided battery convictions, Seized property i.e. Shacks on the flat with its side order of homelessness.

Which now brings us to current History.

But facts are facts: We do not see much compromise and mature diplomacy between the different socio-economic classes – who in cyberspace are called “Left Vs Right” or “Liberal vs Conservative”.

But this poor outcome of what has been 15 years & counting of cyberspace hosted ‘Summits for Polar Opposites’, is simply pigheadedness in equal measures by the Spiritualists & the Folk of the Foothills.

When both parties choose to remove the matching dirty uniforms that is pigheaded tribality, a splendid new garment will be seen. It will be made by those wise men from the future, all living together in harmony in the Spiritual Foothills.