The purpose of searching for Truth and Wisdom in this empirical existence is to close the gap on (upper-case) Happiness; i.e. that Happiness that transcends this lifetime; that Happiness that one can only catch the occasional fleeting glimpse, of. Though (in their purest forms) Truth, Wisdom, and Happiness are unattainable, functionally speaking, the fact that we are consciously aware of their existence encourages the quest; which in turn adds meaning and purpose to this life through learning and growth, and the addition of complexity and depth. (I believe there must be an ultimate uncaused first cause - I will call it, Perfection.) So the likelihood of upper-case Happiness is relegated to fleeting, relative moments, but the functional likelihood of upper-case Happiness, as it operates in this empirical reality, is defined by the usefulness of that search which in turn depends upon the focus of the individual and their ability to balance empirical reality with transcendental consideration. Simply put, the difference between Upper-Case Happiness and Operative Upper-Case Happiness is that Operative Upper-Case Happiness is applicable to one's daily existence - (it is utilitarian and more directly related to the search or journey); whereas Upper-Case Happiness is beyond (transcends) one's daily grasp.

With these thoughts I have come up with a theory and formula (very rough draft) that connects one's 'Operative Upper-Case Happiness' (OUCH) with their sense of reality. I do not intend this as a judgment of one's choices that help them through their day, but rather as a learning tool and guide to encourage me to stay within the parameters of reality as defined by the formula and theorizing below. I have set these parameters according to my sense of reality and as I gather data, my sense of reality could slide one way or the other; though I doubt by much. I have only tested this on a handful of people, but so far the results are interesting. Here it is ...

Theory of (lower-case) happiness and reality and its applicabilty to one's search for (upper-case) Happiness; or ThrasH:

'Operative Upper-Case Happiness' = ('Actual Likelihood of Unexpected Setback' / 'Perceived Likelihood of Unexpected Setback') + 'basic everyday lower-case happiness'

OUCH = (ALUS / PLUS) + belch

ALUS = 7.5; always a constant.

PLUS scale is any positive rational number up to and including 20.

belch scale is any positive rational number up to and including 2.

For best results the formula and the ALUS constant should not be revealed until an individual identifies their PLUS # and belch # per the scale parameters and instructions below, by asking the following 2 questions:

1. "On a scale of 0 to 20, (using positive rational numbers, with 20 being the most likely), in any specific given situation how do you perceive the potential likelihood of one or more unexpected setbacks?"
2. "On a scale of 0 to 2 (using positive rational numbers, with 2 being the highest rating), how would you rate your basic everyday good cheer, satisfaction, or happiness; i.e. lower-case happiness? (Note - you should consider the opinions of significant others, and time you spend alone, when answering this question)."

Decimals and fractions are acceptable for both of the scales above.

Conclusion - Successful OUCH depends on a functionally cheerful or functionally skeptical sense of reality. There are other behavior groupings that are functional, but will not encourage a serious search for Truth and Wisdom.

A Functionally Skeptical Perspective is indicated by an OUCH score ranging from 1.65 to 2.0. A Functionally Cheerful Perspective is indicated by an OUCH score of 2.0 to 2.6.

Those individuals within the range of 1.65 to 2.6 are more likely to question the status quo and understand the difference between upper-case Happiness and lower-case happiness as well as the importance of one's search for Truth and Wisdom.

A score above 2.6 indentifies an individual who believes they have (or an individual who does have) more control than is possible or ethically justifiable; and/or one who believes that positive thinking, superiority, entitlement, or other intangibles have considerable, tangible influence, whereas the actual influence is often the product of one's force of personality and their deluded thought; and/or one who is simply not a planner or is somewhat to totally oblivious of reality; (behavior groupings include: obliviously cheerful to obliviously dysfunctional, or a politician to a power-hungry control freak, or a functional narcissist to a dysfunctional narcissist).

A score below 1.65 identifies a person who has an unrealistically strong sense of justice, and/or may believe the world is against them; (behavior groupings include: simply angry, or hatefully dysfunctional, or paranoid).

The formula operates on the premise that the PLUS norms range from 5 to 10, and that the belch norms range from 0.9 to 1.1. Additionally the belch scale (being 10% of the PLUS scale) acknowledges the influence of everyday (lower-case) happiness (good cheer/satisfaction), but only operates as a hiccup (or belch) in its influence on (upper-case) Happiness; yet because of it's ability to widen the range, it has (on an everyday basis) a greater influence than it should have because it distracts one from their search for Truth and Wisdom.

I identified the range of 'Functional' Skepticism/Cheerfulness as 1.65 to 2.6, but would add that I believe it to be healthier, more effective, and more realistic if one were on the lower end of that range.

When evaluating a score, one can focus on the PLUS and belch separately to differentiate between oblivious, controlling, or narcissist, and angry, hatefully dysfunctional, or paranoid. I have not gathered enough data to quantify these characteristics or to even know if this is the entire range of behavioral possibilities.

So far the range of OUCH scores I have gathered run from a low of 1.55 to a high of 3.5 with a significant majority falling in the normal range. The process has triggered interesting conversation and debate, and reminded me that there are those who disagree with the degree of analysis, study, and thought I believe is necessary for inner peace and exoteric goodness. That's okay ... I doubt they change my mind, but it will allow me insight into just how much others disagree. I will continue to gather data and if I am significantly influenced by this new line of thought, you will likely see future posts on the topic. And if it turns out to simply be a passing amusement, or if I find serious or fatal flaws ... it has been a beneficial exercise in thought.