hopelesshappiness.com

The world is quiet. Yes, I can still hear the voice, the smile that once filled this expanse – it is easy to remember – but in this moment it is somehow more meaningful to listen closely and to hear the outline, the contours, the absence, the silence. The world is quiet.

I think it is safe to say that the bad guys win more frequently than the good guys. I think this is why I have come away from reading so much nonfiction and have increased my load of fiction. In fact-based nonfiction the writers are the thinkers, the bad guys are the actors, and the good guys are the losers. In fiction, though they may not win all the time, at least the good guys are heard. So, perhaps if (in real life) we could agree on who the bad guys are, the good guys might, (if not win), at least occasionally be heard. From where I sit, as a jumping-off point, I would define a bad guy as:

• A millionaire.

Sure, other distinctions, qualifications, characteristics come to mind but as an objective measure and in line with recent thought I believe anyone with a million dollars or more supports, promotes and perpetuates bureaucracy, convention, certainty and division; and I believe that is bad because it takes away from Beauty, Truth, Wisdom and Justice. And don’t be distracted by how much an individual millionaire or billionaire claims to give away to help the less entitled. Sleight of hand does not excuse pretentious excess.

Why would a millionaire act in any other way than to protect their assets? They are not asked to think, they are programmed to perpetuate. So they act in the interest of their self and the other whopping 4 to 7 percent of Americans who share this distinction, leaving 93 to 96 percent of Americans less entitled and more than 50 percent of Americans underprivileged. Yes, in this regard thinking and acting are mutually exclusive. And not surprisingly, to further entrench this unthinking ignorance, a hugely disproportionate percentage of our legal representatives in Washington are bad guys. Regardless of the political rhetoric, good guys have no chance to be heard.

I know I am beating a horse that is on all manner of life support, but the saddest part of this circumstance is not the 93 to 96 percent less entitled, nor is it the 50+ percent underprivileged. The saddest part of this circumstance is the undue, (once?) avoidable hardships we are inflicting upon future generations. Extinction? According to some, a very real possibility. But even if it comes to that, considering the off-ramp, extinction would come as a relief on so many different levels.

Yet the actors do not want to hear it. The actors do not want to think. They merely want to act. And then to make it worse, to further substantiate context, followers are more likely to follow actors than thinkers. This is largely because actors require very little from their followers; quiescent subservience is easily accomplished by dulling our senses with a superficial, meaningless layer of comfort. Thinkers on the other hand require effort...

Last week I said, “Our leaders today pretend to be followers and pretend not to be leaders, and from there are very ineffective.” To expend effort maintaining a façade takes away energy that could be spent more effectively elsewhere. In fairness, I believe our leaders yesterday also pretended when necessary; it was just necessary less often. Also in fairness, our leaders yesterday came from the same self-righteous entitlement as our leaders today. I believe the difference is that yesterday’s leaders could better see a big picture, (today’s big picture is much bigger), and (because there was less pretending) they were more effective advancing the whole. But still, then (as now) their context was flawed and their certainty was divisive.

And in our (inescapable?) context, the whole is indeed always the most important thing. So if the context is flawed and our leadership is misguided and ineffective, how do we reconcile the whole (as it is required to be by the system) with the individual? How do we walk the talk? Or do we just stop talking? Or is the talk necessary to allow time for the walk to catch up? Or is the talk talked to deceive and distract? Maybe both necessary and misleading? A maddeningly slow merry-go-round of mixed messages.

To further fortify ourselves in this circular entrenchment, today’s followers, more so than yesterday, pretend to be leaders mostly by parroting dogma and convention. And just as with leaders, this effort expended on pretending leaves most of these pretenders essentially useless; perhaps able to pull their own weight but unable and unwilling to do their part improving circumstance – circumstance that should be improved for (the least pretentious group amongst us), those followers rendered helpless and powerless by the system.

So, as dictated by our context, we have leaders pretending to be one of us, and we have followers pretending to be leaders, and we have followers who (despite our pretending otherwise and through no fault of their own) are unable to help their selves much less contribute to the whole. So, as dictated by our context, the only efforts toward Beauty-Truth-Wisdom-Justice are individual efforts drowned out by context. And, as dictated by our context, concerted effort toward anything except bureaucracy-convention-certainty-division is forbidden.

I would say “God Help Us” but that is how we got here.

This week I am cutting off my nose to spite my face, actively hoping that I am also presenting reality in a way that cannot be ignored. If one talks a talk about caring and compassion and teamwork, but walks a walk of superficial, pretentious ignorance, (ignorance in this case being unaware, heedless, negligent, oblivious, unconcerned), and they are presented with graphic, indisputable, impossible-to-ignore evidence of their walk, (i.e. the bloody stump of a nose), perhaps next time more care will be taken. Also, perhaps not. Some choose to be consciously unaware, others are unaware because they are unable to hear or see beyond the noise that is their own self-importance, and of those remaining who are willing to put forth more effort I believe a majority of this minority are trapped in circumstance that compels them to prioritize self-interest over compassion or change for the better.

So far this year I have been pounding this drum of the subservience of Beauty-Truth-Wisdom-Justice to bureaucracy-convention-certainty-division, and the helplessness of individuals to make any kind of a meaningful difference, other than individually. So if my only option is to actively hope by acknowledging and working within my personal insignificance, and by continuing to learn and think and improve, and by occasionally presenting a bloody stump, then so be it.

That said, I will continue to choose personal difficulty or discomfort over making imperious demands of others no matter their degree of ignorance. My imperious demands will only justify another’s self-importance, whereas my bloody stump, (be it in the interest of justice or as a reminder of my relative insignificance), will point to the greater significant necessity of all of Humanity as a whole. Most will choose to not see where I point, but some may and I will. I experience more freedom, see more beauty, come closer to Truth, gain more wisdom, and walk more parallel with Justice in the throes of adversity, effort, struggle than I ever will in the comfort of my recliner watching Netflix; or in the comfort of my corner office (with a window) giving orders; or in the comfort of my smug certainty judging others. To have compassion one must first suffer.

This week I am reading “A Blaze of Glory” from Jeff Shaara, a fictional account of the Battle of Shiloh, April 6-7, 1862; a Civil War battle that took nearly 3500 American lives and claimed more than 23,000 casualties. On the first day, shortly before he was killed, General Albert Sidney Johnston was watching a doctor at work on the battlefield. Picking up the narrative on page 285: “Johnston turned away, thought of the blood he had already seen this day, so many fallen men, disfigured and broken, so many beyond the reach of anything a doctor could do. I cannot see that, he thought. I cannot mourn, even for a moment, the loss of a soldier. It is my duty, after all, to regard this army as a single force, a single being. The whole, always the most important thing.”

This is the ultimate bloody stump; a soldier following orders to his death. And to his credit, General Albert Sidney Johnston’s talk is consistent with his walk. And perhaps that is what disturbs me most – we have not changed our methods, soldiers following orders from officers, but we have changed our reality, pretending we’re all in this together. General Albert Sidney Johnston was an exception; a leader who knew he was a leader but was also willing to follow. Our leaders today pretend to be followers and pretend not to be leaders, and from there are very ineffective. Some say General Johnston would have made a bigger difference in the outcome of the Battle of Shiloh if he would have continued to lead from the rear and not become a follower of his own leadership. I would argue that he would not have been as effective unwilling to follow; he would have become what he despised. And perhaps that explains our circumstance today; those leaders also willing to follow, (who would be more effective leading change for the better), are chewed up and spit out by a system that rewards status quo, leaving leaders who can only pretend.

To be responsible for a task and to delegate more pedestrian aspects of that task, begs the question, is the taskmaster exercising power for its own sake? Or is the taskmaster being lazy? Or are there truly resource (i.e. time) constraints prohibiting the taskmaster from otherwise completing the task? Or is it some combination thereof? I would venture a (cynical?) guess that a significant majority of the time, it is an entanglement of power and laziness. Perhaps the power drives the laziness allowing time for the taskmaster to glory in his or her greatness, or perhaps the sloth drives the power enabling the taskmaster to more easily focus on personal gluttony.

Either or both power and/or laziness, no matter the driver, indicate an unwillingness on the part of a taskmaster to exhibit compassion or to actively hope and work toward change for the better. We, as a species, are killing ourselves with this widespread unwillingness that power then tries to hide. It's not hard though to lift the shroud and see the machinations. And if we dig a little deeper, I believe we will find it is fear that is driving these cogs and wheels.

To pursue power requires confidence and a degree of certainty, yet truthfulness and respect for reality requires one to admit to one’s imperfections and uncertainties. In this sense we are all frauds who fear being found out. The only difference is, some of us know this, some of us don’t; and those of us who do, don’t know it all the time. I learn more from my silence, from my failings, from acknowledging my fears, than I will ever glean from exercising power.

But it is for the very same reasons that I don’t always recognize myself as a fraud, that I also resent being used by power – my ego, my imperfections, my uncertainties, this filter aka me. So should I even be asking this question of a taskmaster when I am also unable to consistently hold myself accountable. Perhaps not. But then again, just as (periodically) acknowledging my fears helps me to better understand and exhibit compassion, I believe an awareness of any power/indolence dynamic creates potential for change for the better. But I cannot confuse this potential for betterment with thinking or acting as if I am better. I cannot lose sight of compassion. I cannot blame or be angry with another for being human; for acting not only on instinct but also on learned, rewarded behavior.

Which brings us back, (I’ve been here before), to this system that we live in that rewards indifference, pride, greed, bureaucracy, convention, certainty, and division, all carelessly covered by a superficial, pretentious, political kindness.

Who are we?

Who do we want to be?

Instead of being the predominant species on Earth, perhaps we should return the Earth to the Earth and become responsible stewards. Instead of taskmaster, perhaps we should aspire to caretaker. But to do these things, to do so would require a willingness as individuals to go unrewarded; or, it would require a different system.

The third option – to be looked back upon as a short-lived species.