Navigating Happiness

It really is all about me. Not at all in an other-oriented sense in that I expect the world to revolve around me and/or I believe that everyone I come in contact with should always (first and foremost) focus on me. But most definitely in the self-oriented sense where I will 'Never' escape my personal sense of me, and I will 'Always' (first and foremost) see all things through this filter I call 'Me'. In other words, it is all about me from my perspective because I am me; and from another's perspective they are the only 'me' that they know, so it is still 'all about me' - only, it is them - not me. Like many (alleged) insights I look at this and see it as a 'Duh' moment, as it now appears rather obvious. But it has led me to consciously remember the following:

  1. by nature, I am selfish;
  2. there are times I don't like myself, so at times it is sad that I can never escape me;
  3. it actually, really, for sure (I need this reassurance) does not matter as much as I often think it does, what others think of me;
  4. ultimately I choose for myself and I act for myself,  utilizing (or not) an ethical decision-making process;
  5. after choosing and acting ethically (or not) for myself, I either a) regard others with courtesy, respect, compassion, and empathy, and I help where possible, asked, and/or needed; or I b) regard others with apathy, disdain, contempt, and/or condescension, and I choose to not help or I pretend to help (or think I am helping) with criticism, judgement, and/or certainty; or I c) mix and match elements of 'A and B' as I see fit to suit my purposes; and
  6. I consciously and actively recognize (or not) that when I am interacting with another and they with me, from their perspective I am (personally) #5 on their list of considerations, just as they are #5 on my list.

Or put more mellifluously -  in each and every thought process I have that is related to human interaction (stranger, acquaintance, friend, or loved one) my intent is to first take charge so I may navigate the hazardous straits of 'Woe is Me' and the rocky shores of 'What will others think?' to reach the choppy waters of ethically choosing a navigable course with decent odds of safe passage to the deeper waters of a meaningful relationship. Yet when I choose well and reach these deep waters, stormy seas will on occasion cause a fear of capsizing, thus (from my perspective) suggesting that I chart a course toward calmer, shallow waters and perhaps a sunny, comfortable beach. And once on that sunny, comfortable beach, I might want to stay, joining those who (unethically) have also chosen the safe shallows of comfort over the depths of adversity.

I believe this extension of thought from my original insight (though still obvious) has added some logic and import to this consideration of human interaction from a perspective of 'Me'. And that is where I began this week - selfishly searching for an understanding of why others so frequently choose to (it appears to me) ignore serious thought and discussion that will lead to ethical decision-making which in turn will minimize harm and maximize good. I am determined and (at times) severe when it comes to serious thought and communal/global progress, yet everywhere I look (again, it appears to me) so many of us are so wrapped up in busyness, and safety, and comfort that we cannot see beyond our own, personal shoreline. ...So based on this thought instead of reproachfully justifying my search as I have done above, perhaps I should admit that I really began this week wondering why (it appears to me) no one will take me seriously. I know - The Straits of 'Woe is Me' are narrow and (in places) very shallow and I have been stuck; but this week's thoughts have (for the moment) pushed me off my sandbar. I cannot save the world, (especially since the world won't listen); but by actively acknowledging the gap from #1 (my perspective) to #5 (the perspective of another), I believe I can save me.

I lifted two quotes from two different creative venues this week that have relevance and that I would like to explore further. The first comes from John Goodman as a Tulane Professor discussing literature with his class in the HBO series 'Treme'. The second is from the fictional work 'World Gone By' written by Dennis Lehane.

"Don't think in terms of a beginning and an end, because unlike some plot-driven entertainments, there is no closure in real life; not really."

"He waited for others to come. He hoped they would. He hoped there was more to this than a dark night, an empty beach, and waves that never quite reached the shore."

Stories do often lead us to believe in closure; the hero gets the girl (or guy), the villain is vanquished, and there is an implied happily ever after. But something has to happen next. The characters (usually) do not simply vanish. Perhaps the happy couple will settle into a small house and begin a life of five or six day work weeks, mowing the lawn, taking out the trash, hunting and foraging at the grocery, paying bills, visiting with extended family, and with some luck they may occasionally enjoy friends, children, grandchildren, Scrabble, books, movies, and maybe even extended family And what about the vanquished villain? Odds are they have moved on to a new story in which they are hero, and they have settled in a small house, began a life of five or six day work weeks... Remember that these are stories. Reality consists of many different norms (ex. Homelessness) that still follow a routine. Regardless of circumstance, when the very large majority of us resolve one conflict we continue to routinely put one foot in front of the other, so we may move on to the next conflict.

Closure requires a final resolution of conflict, yet resolution begets more conflict. There is no 'final' resolution. We may believe that we gain closure through attachment with another individual or with a group, but that simply creates opportunity for conflict with an out-group. Conflict (even individual, inner conflict) always involves others and/or is influenced by others. Even "a dark night, an empty beach, and waves that never quite reach the shore" create a yearning for human interaction. In death many hope for and believe in an afterlife of human interaction; but regardless of belief, in death, one still has influence in life. So even this apparent finality does not bring closure.

The sadness of solitude comes from a longing for companionship. I believe this longing for companionship to be in each of us. I believe as long as we need companionship, closure is not possible; though we still search. For some this longing for companionship may be a palpable, (almost) physical ache. For others it may manifest as a simple desire to wander busy streets or visit crowded shops or restaurants. Regardless of how we fulfill this desire, to do so one must first negotiate with their personal sense of me. This look at closure and companionship has brought me right back to my original insight - it really is all about me.

Only...

Now I see...

I see that you are also me...
...and she is me.
...and he is me.
...and they are me.

So if, from some perspective, we are all me, who are they?

By adding logic and import to this consideration of human interaction from a perspective of me, and by debunking closure and validating companionship, I now see that a meaningful relationship can begin with a shared sense of me thus narrowing the gap even further between my perspective and the perspective of another me.

I realize (some may say) that this borders on the mystical; but if so it is a rational mysticism.

I also know that the likelihood of a very large collection of multiple individuals sharing this consciousness of 'Me' in a way that can significantly aid in minimizing global harm and maximizing a global good is (at this point in our history) untenable to an extent that many (perhaps most) would question the sanity of even expending this effort.

My response: I believe evidence shows that through more widespread shared empathy and compassion we have already made progress in this very direction.

Earlier in this written thought (and with tongue in cheek) I complained about the world not listening to me, and I (seriously) acknowledged that I cannot save the world. I followed this with the claim that 'by actively acknowledging this gap between my perspective and the perspective of another, I believe I can save me.' And now that I have (in my mind, for what that's worth) logically expanded 'Me' to include all individuals with a 'sense of me' I can believe that by saving me I am also saving the world; (Delusional? or Actively Hopeful?). And conversely, by not making this effort to save me by giving serious thought to global progress in the context of a universal me, I am giving up on the world; writing it off as a loss; sitting on the status quo; passively following those who are loud and certain; and on; and on; and on.

I believe I can save me...

This entry was posted in Philosophy. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

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