Looking in on Happiness

We are all on the outside looking in. We work each day at acquiring the shelter and security inherently promised by moving in. Our humanity dictates this need for a sense of belonging, but even when we manage it, we often find that a sense of longing remains. Some may claim satisfaction with their place and affiliations, but (in my mind) that deceptive comfort is actually complacency that leads to missed opportunities; a sense of longing should remain. Whether it is a group or an individual longingly looking in to the circle of another group or another individual, or an individual longingly searching within him or herself for an insightful glimpse into his or her own esoteric nature, we are all, in some sense, to varying degrees, and in varying circumstances, standing on the outside looking in. This is as it should be.

When one is on the inside, it is an indication of the true nature of belonging that on occasion another (on the outside) accuses you of 'being one of them'. Whether delivered good-naturedly or vindictively, this accusation causes discomfort and uncertainty, (along with some defensiveness). And it is also an indication of the true nature and necessity of opposites to find that we simultaneously need to belong and need to be unique, thus creating conflict and tension. Again, this is as it should be.

This dichotomy may assist in understanding why isolation is often painful. When we belong - when we are a part of like-minded thinking - we feel strong and certain. When alone, it is more difficult to maintain certainty, and nearly impossible to attain a consensus. Alone, one must stretch by adding complexity and depth to a more thoughtful analysis. With no agreement or consensus one must (should) more closely examine motives, resulting behaviors, and potential consequences. This is also as it should be.

I believe I am arguing against the often easier groupthink consensus and for a thoughtful interdependent independence. I have made the beginnings of a case (above) for independence, but how can independence (free from the control or influence of others) be interdependent (mutually dependent, with synergy)? The key is mutual synergy - each individual must contribute in order to make the whole greater than the sum of its parts. And maximal synergy is not possible without individual openness to change, which in turn is not possible without uncertainty and the desire to question everything; including oneself.

In previous posts I have maintained that certainty is the antithesis of true personal faith. Certainty also dampens and at times snuffs out independent thought and/or the sharing of independent thought. Before we (humanity as a whole) can attain any semblance of synergy or a shared consciousness, we (humanity as a collection of individuals) must learn to cultivate and harvest independent thought.

The challenge does not so much lie in the empowerment of individual thinkers as it does in the dis-empowerment of hardcore political bosses. In recent years we have consistently moved toward individual empowerment through more widespread organizational initiatives, and through the use of technology. The challenge is that hardcore political bosses do not believe in individual empowerment or they are just going through the motions of empowering others, and are unwilling to relinquish their power and control mistakenly thought to be deserved and earned by superior skills and/or knowledge; (I should qualify by saying that some individuals are gifted and deserving of some decision-making power, but this too often leads to an 'I know best - I am indispensable - your input is unnecessary' mindset, and as discussed in recent posts no one individual is any more or any less necessary than any other one individual).

I am not sure of an answer for this power/control dilemma in the business world as it is unlikely that dissidence will overthrow those who sign the paychecks, and more likely that the dissident(s) will soon be without that paycheck. In the realm of elected officials though, perhaps a message that re-election is unlikely may (at the least) ease the stranglehold, allowing enough breath to voice independent thought. I go back to thoughts in this previous post including the encouragement to teach young people how to think instead of what to think, and the movement away from narcissistic entitlement and toward simplified reason and logic; and with these considerations, perhaps in two or three generations we will be closer to a true interdependent independence.

Simply put, compassion, empathic listening, respect for independent thought, and the realization that each one of us is equally significant and necessary will ultimately bring us closer to a universally shared and synergistic consciousness, which in turn will inspire individual exoteric goodness and intensify one's inner peace.

This entry was posted in Philosophy. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *