What happens when an organization's inefficiencies overtake and surpass its efficiencies? According to organizational economic theory the organization will either add/improve efficiencies to regain balance, or scale back its operations to regain preexisting efficiencies and restore a healthier bottom line; but in some cases an organization (or an entire industry) may increase rates and/or fees to cover up negligent inefficiencies. Additionally some organizations are not dependent upon profits. Any organization that is subsidized (by taxpayers for example) and is not regeneratively independent, is not necessarily subject to this market mandate of efficiency.
What happens when an individual's inefficiencies overtake and surpass his or her efficiencies? Much the same as above: (1) existing efficiencies must be improved, and/or (2) new efficiencies must be added, or (3) he or she must scale back efforts and/or expectations to maintain stability and to ensure functional daily operations. As individuals many of us are subsidized via human interaction ranging from casual contact to intimate relationships. With this support we are often able to get through rough patches and occasionally we can demand extra attention (i.e. a rate increase) for a short period, but ultimately it comes back to the individual to decide if effort and/or expectation stagnate or if we continue to progress painfully. Ultimately many of us find that there are days (minutes... hours... weeks... months... years... Lifetimes...) when we are unsubsidized and alone; and in the marketplace of humanity, this is a normal state - one we should expect and embrace.
Many would argue that they are not unsubsidized and alone, and that it (unsubsidized and alone) is not a normal state. I would argue that it is not only a normal state but a preferable state, and that each of us is more alone than we perceive ourselves to be. It is preferable because it encourages efficiencies in learning and growth, and one's ability to close the gap on Truth and Wisdom. A bevy of friends and family, after a point, can serve as a distraction and keep us from our quest. This can also contribute to how, (in this narcissistic world of distractions), we (too often) may find it easier to scale back our effort and expectation, and ignore our calling/purpose; that is, if we have identified a calling. Just as the invisible hand in economics tweaks the marketplace through pricing to balance supply and demand, so does the esoteric nature of humanity require either an equivalent tweaking of efficiency and inefficiency, or inner justification of negligent inefficiency. An overabundance of human interaction can serve as that justification.
One of the points I am arguing for here is moderation in and equally progressive effort (as possible) toward all the elements of Happiness as seen on the Periodic Happiness Table of Elements. I have made this point in previous posts and will not belabor it here, other than to say lower-case happiness (everyday cheerfulness / satisfaction) is a trap.
Another argument I would like to expand on is my belief that each of us is more alone than we perceive ourselves to be. I accidentally stumbled upon a conversation this week in which I was the topic and the conversing parties did not know I was in earshot. Their perception of me was not consistent with my self-image. After the expected hurt subsided this served as a reminder that in many ways, and more often than we would like, our self-image is not consistent with other's perception of us. I can turn this around and think of many, many individuals who behave as if others consider them in one regard, yet myself and/or others consider them in a completely different light; and I know the perceived truth of this because I hear both considerations verbalized by all concerned. It only makes sense that I have the same deluded self-image. When I see myself in this way, I realize I am indeed more unsubsidized and alone than I want to be or would like to believe. I have previously touted the benefits of 'uninhibited truthfulness' to oneself - this is an example. Yes, it (uninhibited truthfulness) hurts. Yes, it is hard work. But I believe, in the long run, it is well worth the effort.
... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
Upon letting this post (to this point) simmer for a day I can't help but objectively ask, do I truly believe that this state (unsubsidized and alone) is advantageous? Or am I simply attempting to justify personal circumstance? To answer these questions, I have to ask, is my circumstance by choice? I know that part of the answer lies in the fact that I began feeling more alone and excluded 7 years ago when I left full-time work due to disability. In the last three years though, I have spent seventeen months working full-time (which I had to stop again due to the disability), and fifteen months (and counting) working part-time. I have been married 33+ years and I have three grown children and one beautiful granddaughter, as well as numerous extended family members. I provide this personal background to substantiate my belief that this propensity toward solitude is by choice. I have my whole life been a bit of a loner. I have always been one to enjoy coffee shops, restaurants, travel, movies, and other activities alone (as well as with others), and though circumstance may have jump-started and intensified these proclivities, I also choose them, again substantiated by the fact that I could choose otherwise.
I stand by the belief that one is more likely to close the gap on Truth and Wisdom with a proper mix (according to circumstance and opportunity) of cloistered learning and productive, interdependent synergy; (the latter not to be confused with having a beer with the gang - though that also has its place). I have been holding up my end of the cloistered learning, and have held my own in the communal beer department; but perhaps, ...perhaps I could seek a more active synergy...