As yet at 14:51, I have had no response.
I think I have stumbled upon a philosophy. It can be summed up in these words;
First, Do what you need to,
Second, Do what you want to,
NEVER, Do what you have to.
And explained thus;
We need to eat,
We want to do alot,
We do not have to do anything.
Like all philosophies, this is open to interpretation and requires thought to properly understand.
If I imagine the scenario of a flood, one could argue you have to move to higher ground. I say no you do not. What I believe this analogy does is highlight when a want can be transformed in to a perceived need. If, in this instance, you want remain dry and do not want to risk drowning, then you might need to move to higher ground/ board a boat. But I maintain that you do not have to.
A more common, and less dramatic, parallel can be drawn with rent/mortgage of a home. One could argue you have to pay the figure asked if you want to stay living there. Lets make the presumption that for whatever reason, your survival and future existence depends upon your continued habitation of said property. I argue you still do not need to pay anyone any money. Generally, people do not want to pay anyone money...
Your landlord cannot control you anymore than any other being. You may fear his threats and future actions, but this does not change anything. This scenario wouldn't exist if he also were an advocate of this philosophy. Indeed, your occupation is evidence of his lack of need.
As yet, when these presupposed situations are boiled down to their most basic and rudimentary levels, I can find not one that fatally rebukes this idea. Until one presents itself, I shall endeavour to adopt this mantra until it is no longer of service.
M Jones
