Yes, she's still relying on "money" in the form of bartering, but what I found most interesting is how little she relies on while still claiming to be happy. Compared to most employed/educated americans, her situation is rather insecure, and many (most?) of us wouldn't tolerate that. I like articles like this that remind me that a) my level of security may be illusory and b) even if I lost it, things might not be so bad.
"Compared to most employed/educated americans, her situation is rather insecure, and many (most?) of us wouldn't tolerate that. "
I'd like to interview her again when she gets really sick (not that I wish her to become ill). Also she seems to have children - maybe if she got really bad, they would take care of her in the end.
She did address that. She said if she gets cancer, she will die, and that is that.
I suppose it would be interesting to see if she stayed with that conviction once she really is sick. But, she's 67 already, and has managed to stick to some difficult convictions already, so I wouldn't bet against her.
Transfer of value in a physical Universe is always a given, so "no money" is a farce in my opinion. Articles like these represent one thing only: destine (not to be confused with destiny). Minimalism, simplicity, declutter, zen, are all manifestations of proactive, deliberate, and mindful thinking.
When your thought is proactive (rather than reactive) and deliberate there is little room for the emptiness that consumerism and facile distractions attempt to fill. What destine creates within is motion. Motion is life.
Hence: negative e-motion = less motion; positive e-motion = more motion. Get deliberate, get proactive, and you get happy, productive, efficient, and simple.
Security is an illusion of the Ego. The Ego being defined as that psychological complex that keeps the body and species alive (hunger, sleep, sex). Necessary, buy only to degree. The Self (psychological, physical, and spiritual whole) seeks growth through change (or, motion) - the life we live is all about keeping up with the Self and not getting bogged down in maintaining our security, let the need for security evolve with the circumstances...
OK, but I think the suggested relationship between motion and e-motion is misleading. It is interesting poetically, but it is not particularly insightful or useful in an argument.
