THE HOUSE/SHELTER CONUNDRUM

House/Shelter understandings have become a confusing and difficult problem or question in the investment driven social cum cultural realities that are becoming increasingly evident in the Western First World.

To reiterate the four human imperatives:

• Firstly, we all need sufficient air to breath, water to drink and food to eat. 
• Secondly, given that we are social animals we need to be able to identify, and be identifiable, within our group/family/tribe and relative to others in the group. 
• Thirdly, we need to procreate and that is genetically and ideologically; and 
• Fourthly, but not lastly, we need a safe and secure HOMEplace.

Evidently, the THIRDworld is better placed culturally to embrace and understand the FOURTHimperative and that would be so even though in regard to FIRSTworld understandings a large cohort of people could well be living in poverty – at times abject poverty.

In the FIRSTworld it seems that the understanding or belief that, ‘home’ is synonymous with ‘house’. ‘House’ is a physical concept, and for a ‘home’ there doesn’t need to be a 'house' in that place. Clearly, a 'house' is to do with the physical  infrastructure people live in and that offers shelter from the elements and protection against the predations of animals and even humans.

In the FIRSTworld people become increasingly concerned about their material possessions and the 'shelter' a house offers them and their possessions.  This distinction seems to have been blurred somewhat by the notion that a 'home (AKA house' is one and the same that they are are interchangeable and can be seen as an 'investment'. While in the FIRSTworld that might fit the CULTURALlandscaping in that MINDset, It is nonetheless ONEdimensional thinking.

Moreover, it is hard to imagine a rich person leading a happy and fulfilling life alone in a BILLIONdollar mansion.  That is let's say as happy as  less wealthy person living with their family in a two-bedroom apartment. What is at play here is not to downplay the importance of being rich and successful, but to emphasise that of having one's  loved ones near and mutually supportive. Of what 'value' is it if one does not have kith-and-kin being mutually supportive? Indeed, of what 'value' is it given that it is something that is beyond the reach of being something that can be bought and sold as an 'investment' which must be the case to garner a profit or store wealth?

Being able to 'identify' as being within a cohort who regard each other as 'kith-and-kin' you have a share cum stake in the fruits of it's endeavours. When we achieve something we share the wellbeing. On the other hand, we are shattered when we fail in our endeavours we bear the loss together. Our 'kith-and-kin' are the ones who offer mutual support through thick and thin and especially so when the going gets tough. 

Our 'kith-and-kin' are the ones who are more concerned about whether we have enough food etc. more so not than if we managed to submit that tedious report on time.

It is our 'kith-and-kin', who eagerly wait for us and welcome us 'home' after a tiring day at work. The truth is that our families, our 'kith-and-kin' , are our most effective support system. They do not hinder us in the achievement of our goals. If anything, they complement those goals. Indeed, it is their unconditional positive regard (love!) for us is what make us who we are. 

The 14th Dalai Lama, the highest spiritual leader and the exiled head of state of China-occupied Tibet, is known to have said: “Home is where you feel at home and are treated well.” Somewhat ironically the Dalai Lama was born in Tibet and currently lives safely in Dharamshala and is the exiled Tibetan Head State and spiritual leader of the Tibetan Bhuddhist community worldwide and yet is at home.

Likewise, his sort of 'religious eqivelant', Pope Francis was born in Argentina and is now 'at home' in the Vatican, Rome where he presides as the head of the Roman Catholic church. It is where he is at home albeit elsewhere.

All this runs counter to any belief that a HOMEplace is fundamentally and profit oriented wealth storing investment and acquired for that purpose albeit that it may consequently provide shelter. As 'shelter' it might be reasonably understood as an investment but a HOMEplace need not include or even be built infrastructure. That it is the case when a HOMEplace is regularly imagined, and fundamentally so, as an 'investment'. This is a demonstration of the extent to which the purpose of a HOMEplace has become distorted and arguably corrupted.

When we look at the notion of 'homelessness' typically the 'housing stress' people are suffering is attributed to their inability to 'invest' in a HOMEplace. That is pay the 'rent' to an investor who owns a house for the purpose garnering a profit, store wealth or where someone has been unable to acquire a 'house' as a HOMEplace for whatever reason or by whatever means.

This seems to bear all the hallmarks of the FIRSTworld is evolving as a collective where the wealth generating MINDset that measures wellbeing in accord with the volume of assets acquired via investment is the new normal. 

In a SECONDworld cum THIRDworld context despite the encroachment of  FIRSTworld sensibilities. 

The evidence seems to be there for the Dalai Lama's cultural cum spiritual insight relevant to how we might better understand our HOMEplaces.