hopelesshappiness.com

In her Memoirs of a Dutiful Daughter, Simone de Beauvoir remembers from her childhood “the luminous sparkle of candied fruits, the cloudy lustre of jellies, the kaleidoscopic inflorescence of acidulated fruit-drops—green, red, orange, violet—I coveted the colours themselves as much as the pleasures they promised me.” And as an adult she wrote, “I wanted to crunch flowering almond trees, and take bites out of the rainbow nougat of the sunset.”

Algorithm: A set of rules for solving a problem in a finite number of steps.

There are some days when I subtract colour from the world, and I am left with nothing. And that solves many problems.

But then, I add personal thought back into the world, and that adds many problems.

If I am able to add colour back alongside my thought, that solves some problems, lessens other problems, and divides still other problems into smaller constituents, making them more manageable.

And then, if on occasion I am able to follow the rules and perform the steps that result in a perception of personal thought and colour coming to a yin-yang equilibrium, I cheerfully operate as if many problems are solved. But in this circumstance I am cheerfully confused; (until I notice the flowing blood from the harpoon in my thought, and the flowing blood from the other harpoon in colour).

This mixture—the blood of colour and the blood of speciousness—produces a vibrant, viscous, tangy clamor that is somehow perniciously compelling.

This mixture brings clarity; a clarity that with one hand plunges my thought into previously unknown depths of iciness, and with the other hand slits the throat of colour.

With the blood of colour flowing more freely, and the icy depths roiling to the surface, an expansive, exhilarating, and frightening vista of actuality and possibility is exposed. This momentary, volatile landscape is volatile; and momentary.

If I subtract colour from this world, I am left with icy thought; which quickly melts; and evaporates.

And then I must begin again; or not.

Each moment I must choose volatility; or settle for delusion; or fade into nonexistence.

I considered first doing some research, which may have made for more enlightened thought, but decided instead to jump right in and muddle my way through. This week I am working to unravel us, them, mine, and yours. I will begin by doing so grammatically. Us and Them are the objective pronouns of We and They; and Ours and Theirs are the respective possessive pronouns of We and They. Me and Mine are (respectively) the objective and possessive pronouns of I; and Her and Hers serve in the same respective capacities for She. But ultimately it is not the grammar that I am wanting to untangle; it is ideologies based on proposed Ideals, and their potential practical and impractical applications.

Here is what I am getting at. (It feels like) I have frequently thought about Us and Them, taking the position that it is a counterproductive dynamic that has outlived its usefulness. So if objective pronouns have become diabolical evildoers, what do we make of their cousins, the possessive pronouns. Are they GREEDY diabolical evildoers? And being possessive, (since I am focusing on mine and yours), does this mean that private ownership has also outlived its usefulness? This may appear to be a leap, but isn't it through grammatical structure that we discern meaning? I realize that this would be an incendiary position to take, awakening ghosts of tyrannies past, but is there a way to practically examine this perspective (of private ownership as obsolete), from outside of or beyond political necessities and implications? To examine practicalities of a new or renewed ideology or proposed Ideal, we must not only seek functionality, but we must also find the potential for improvement in terms of efficiencies and/or results. I am uncertain if it is possible to separate efforts toward practicality from political administration; especially today in the midst of 7,488,945,442 people. And, I know that experience has shown that impracticality and inefficiency are exactly the characteristics that often predominate within any effort to translate ideology into practicalities into political administration. So if I work to simply and objectively administer an Ideal, I am afraid I will end with (at best) a highly inefficient bureaucracy---(yes, much like our current state)---or (at worst) a tyrannical form of totalitarianism; all of course, in my head, as I have no political clout. And it is within this spectrum of objective political administration, (from bureaucracy to totalitarianism), where most of us now reside. Keep in mind that the initial premise I want to examine is the necessity of private ownership. Though it may appear so, I am not championing public ownership (communism), or state ownership (totalitarianism). And at this point in my thought, (and at this point in our thought), an inefficient bureaucracy administering capitalism based on (or posing as) Freedom appears to be the lesser of evils. Nonetheless...

Is there a way to introduce an Ideology based on an Ideal (such as Freedom or No Ownership or The Übermensch), without having it automatically recognized as a past or current misadventure? Is there a way to formulate practicalities outside of our known spectrum of objective political administration? I believe that most of us would instinctively identify said system of thought by its similarities to other disappointing attempts, and jump right to its failed practicalities neglecting or ignoring any merit that might otherwise be culled and refined. I believe that theory (not only) will, (but also must), be entangled with functional practicality, which today means political administration; which in turn implies a power dynamic, thus an initial Us and Them likely leading to other artificially created Us and Them dynamics to maintain existing (or create desired) power constructs. Regardless, I am going to run with these (unpopular) thoughts on the imminent demise of private ownership, to see how far I get. But to capture attention and imagination, I believe any proposed Ideal must in some way, (even a small way), be unique. Not an easy task...

Because I am still stumbling in the dark, I want to better understand this spectrum of objective political administration that I keep mentioning. I believe most of us would have more faith in an objective truth than in a subjective truth; and this is why a political ideology must work toward an objective administration, as opposed to a dictatorship for example, which utilizes a subjective administration. In some cases, such as the Totalitarianism of Nazi Germany in the 1930's and 40's, the basic belief, (non-Jewish Caucasians are the only ethnicity fit to continue), is flawed, but the logic that flowed from this premise was believably compelling. One either was or was not, and based on this division, decisions and actions fulfilled (so-called) preordained destiny. In other cases, such as the U.S. today, the noble Ideal of Freedom must be protected by rules and regulations, which in turn justify decisions and actions, further necessitating rules and regulations. This quest for large-scale objectivity has (at best) divided and (at worst) terrorized; (yet these objective efforts still have more potential for longevity than do subjective efforts). So though objective administration is preferred over subjective administration, it still calls for improvement. And, private ownership of property being tangibly objective and all tangled up within this spectrum of objective political administration must also be included in a plan for improvement. But I am still fumbling for an answer...

So, to be able to move forward, for the moment I will believe that I have swayed a majority to accept the Ideal of No Ownership, removing one facet from, (thus weakening), the Us and Them dynamic. From here, what would a political ideology look like? And from there, how would that translate into a system of objective political administration that would improve on efficiencies and results? These are two very big questions.

First, The Political Ideology:

Within my limited understanding, the ideology I am beginning to formulate is in the neighborhood of Socialism, perhaps leaning toward Social Democracy, with maybe a dash (or two or three) of Mutualism, a sprinkle of Activism, and a pinch of Anarchy. But somehow I would like to differentiate between community or public ownership and no ownership, and I would like to simplify, and I would like to avoid explosive terminology. An Ideology typically involves an -ism and when combining elements from multiple existing ideologies a hyphen may also be included. With all this in mind, (and because Mutual-Social-Demo-Activanarchism is cumbersome and mostly inaccurate), I will call this proposed system of political thought, None-the-lessism. Not only is it catchy and inoffensive, but in many ways it is an accurate portrayal of my efforts to dethrone divisive power dynamics despite their presence and influence throughout recorded history. It is accurate because my efforts are not the lesser of a) my efforts and b) nothing. What is there to lose? Enough is enough! As Pierre Joseph Proudhon (1809-1865) said,

"Then if we are associated for the sake of liberty, equality, and security, we are not associated for the sake of property; then if property is a natural right, this natural right is not social, but anti-social. Property and society are utterly irreconcilable institutions. It is as impossible to associate two proprietors as to join two magnets by their opposite poles. Either society must perish, or it must destroy property."

In context Mr. Proudhon is referring to private (or unmovable) property such as land. I agree with this distinction and believe that personal (or movable) property may be subject to ownership.

To this end, another quote. This one from Jean-Jacques Rousseau in 1754:

"The first person who, having enclosed a plot of land, took it into his head to say 'this is mine' and found people simple enough to believe him, was the true founder of civil society. What crimes, wars, murders, what miseries and horrors would the human race have been spared, had someone pulled up the stakes or filled in the ditch and cried out to his fellow men: 'Do not listen to this impostor. You are lost if you forget that the fruits of the earth belong to all and the earth to no one!'"

(The Rousseau quote was also used in this previous thought: Uphill Happiness from April 16, 2016.)

So if No Ownership of private property is the linchpin, I believe a second major characteristic, and logical follow-up, would be more evenly distributed opportunity which would translate to more evenly distributed power which would translate to (yes, like-it-or-not) more evenly distributed wealth. This is a good starting point. Other characteristics of none-the-lessism would naturally follow from the implementation and administration as outlined in the next section.

Now, The Political Administration:

To do this justice, I believe we would need to fast-forward 50 years beyond full implementation, and then come back to the transition; but to avoid conjecture on new technologies that may be introduced in the next 50 to 100 years, I will instead introduce none-the-lessism as if it were fully implemented and functional tomorrow. I would also like to imagine this as a worldwide initiative, though I believe it feasible on a national scale. Here goes...

When I venture up and out in the morning, I will not see any immediately noticeable changes. Everything that has happened, has happened behind the scenes. I will still find my tomato juice in the refrigerator, my pistachios (roasted and salted) in the pantry, and my car in the driveway. I will still go to work and screen college applications based on merit as I always have. I will still have a variety of choices for lunch and for my afternoon coffee, and I can still go by the grocery store after work to choose something for dinner. At home tomorrow evening I will still have the same programming selections from the dish provider I had previously chosen, and I will still be able to surf the Web or read my book while keeping an eye on the basketball game.

If next week I decide I want to job hunt, I will do so in the same manner I would have last week. If this summer I decide that I want a newer vehicle, I will shop (for it and the loan) as I would have last summer. If I am a renter and in two years I have tired of mowing 3 acres, I can house-hunt in the same way I would have two years ago. All of the market mechanisms, with the single exception of real estate, will remain in play, but based on the behind the scenes changes, they will have become more efficient because greed and power will have considerably less influence. Here is how:

1. No one owns private property. All land, buildings, public services, and businesses are still subject to appropriate protection of assets as provided by existing business, political, and governmental systems, but on paper they are unowned entities. If I previously owned my home, I am now a renter: (much like I am renting this physical body and my current existence). If I previously owned a business, I am now its managing partner. These considerations will be explored in more detail below.

2. Currency has become electronic Parity Dollars. Each one of the 7,489,636,968 individuals in this world (in this moment) receive their share of the world's wealth (paid weekly) from the considerations and factors as calculated on the wealth rubric; (outlined below). There is less "Old Money" or "Family Money" as much of it has been contributed to the world's wealth in the transition period (as explained further below). Because all rents and business profits now go to the world wealth bank, there are no taxes. Any business concern that was previously required to produce budgets, balance sheets, etc., (including public utilities, and cities and towns), must continue to do so. Any business concern not showing a profit for multiple consecutive years will be subject, (following stringent, to-be-determined guidelines), to restructuring and or forced bankruptcy/closure. Healthcare insurance and personal liability insurance for each individual will be required.

Wealth Rubric: An individual's Parity Salary will be paid on the factors below as calculated from the previous calendar year, (except for # of Household Members which is a more immediate adjustment); though the new salary will be paid (on a 3 month delay) from April 1 through March 31. Age, Years of Education, and Level of Education will be calculated according to the status on December 31. Changes in employment status will be calculated accordingly by percentage of year spent in each job. Death will be prorated for the entire year and evenly distributed to the other Household Members, and Household Member status will be adjusted on the first day of the following month after 30 days.

Parity Salary Factors: In order to have a number from which to calculate, for our purposes now, the Base Parity Salary is calculated as an average of the "Purchasing Power Parity" from average annual wages in US dollars across a sampling of 30 countries in 2015. This number is $38,395.00. Unless otherwise stated, all percentages below are calculated from this Base Parity Salary. For purposes of profit and loss, the business concern pays for all Job Factors below, and the world wealth bank takes deductions and pays for all non job factors below.

• Age: 0 - 17 (or age of legal emancipation) = 25% distributed (evenly) to the legal guardian(s). Age of legal emancipation - 20 or 18 to 20 = 50%. 21 - 29 = 75%. 30-39 = 80%. 40 - 49 = 90%. 50+ = 100%.
• Years of Education is defined as less than 12 if no High School Diploma, 12 if a High School Diploma is obtained, and 1 additional year for every 30 college semester credit hours, (or 40 college quarter credit hours). Less than 12 = -20% from base. 12 = Base. Each additional year = +2.5% up to a maximum of 8 years or +20%.
• Level of Education is based on degrees earned. A High School Diploma = Base. A Bachelor's Degree = +5%. A Master's Degree = +10%. A Doctoral Degree = +20%. These percentages are maximum, and only one percentage increase will apply; (ex. If one earns two Bachelor's Degrees, one Master's Degree, and two Doctoral Degrees, their percentage increase is +20%).
• Unemployed: Working less than 500 hours in a calendar year = -25%. This factor does not apply to an individual with a disability.
• Job Factor - Hours Worked: 100 hours = +2.5% up to a maximum of 3000 hours or +75%.
• Job Factor - Salaried Position: A full time salaried position = 3000 hours. A part time salaried position = 1500 hours.
• Job Factor - Premium: A full time job in health care, education, the military, or public service = +10%. A salaried position supervising more than 9 other salaried or non-salaried personnel = +5%; more than 49 = +10%; more than 99 = +15%; (only one salaried premium will apply).
• Job Factor - Talent Premium: For actors, writers, professional athletes, artists, entertainment personalities, and anyone else (such as a business consultant) who may be contracted per job or per season, or paid per project, a Talent Premium of up to 1000% may be negotiated and paid. Anyone receiving multiple Talent Premiums in a calendar year may not earn more than 1500% maximum. Anyone receiving 12.5% or more in Talent Premiums is not subject to the Unemployment deduction.
• Job Factor - Physicality: All jobs will have a physicality grade listed as non physical = Base; physical = +5%; very physical = +10%; or exceptionally physical = +15%.
• Job Factor - Risk: All jobs will have a risk grade listed as minimal = Base; moderate = +5%; above average = +10%; or dangerous = +20%.
• Household Members are defined as official residents of the same address/household, aged 18 or older. 2 Household Members = -20% as calculated from each member's Base Parity Salary. Each additional Household Member = -5% additional, up to 5 Household Members or a maximum of -35% for each member. A Household may include more than 5 Members, but in this case the maximum deduction will remain -35%.

Calculating from the factors listed above, a married 40 year old with a Bachelor's Degree, working as a salaried manager of a convenience store, supervising 15 non salaried employees, with one child aged 18 still at home while attending college, will earn an annual income of $63,351.75. If his or her 38 year old spouse who attended college for one year, chooses not to work, he or she will have an annual income of $12,478.38. If that same spouse worked an average of 20 hours per week, he or she would have an annual income of $32,059.82.

These numbers may be high taking into account total world income, but they feel reasonable, and, if there is a gap, I believe gained efficiencies will help to close it. Still, if adjustments are necessary, within the simplicity of this rubric they are easily accomplished.

And Now, Implementation:

In the US, I believe we have a governmental structure already in place that could be transitioned to implement this system. To implement it worldwide would involve much more complexity, so I will briefly focus on an overview for this country. Local and State bureaucracies could be refocused from (for example) tax collection to Household registrations. Real estate and property experts, (both private and governmental), could be refocused on dwelling appraisals and rent fee structures. On a national level I believe a representative democracy is a nice fit for the implementation and ultimate administration of none-the-lessism. Our representative democracy however, needs to evolve. I believe some form of voluntary draft for public office would help to rid us of divisive partisan politics and the outrageous resulting expenditures. In an extreme example, we could move to a lottery system, (imagine ping pong balls in a giant hopper), of choosing a single social security number from all registered constituents with a Bachelor's Degree for respective US House of Representatives seats. Each one chosen will have the opportunity to say "no thank you" and another will be chosen until one accepts. After 6 (or 8?) year terms in the House, those Representatives from a given state will be allowed, (if they choose to do so), to submit their name for election to the US Senate. Retiring Senators may in turn submit their name to be considered for US President (most votes) and Vice President (second most votes). A World Council could be set up in a similar manner, with perhaps former Presidents, Vice Presidents and Senators (or their equivalencies from other nations) moving on to this world stage. In the US alone though, imagine elections for occupation of the Senate and the White House, with no partisan politics and a verifiable track record for each candidate. And if partisan politics become obsolete on the national level, how long will they last on the local and state level?

It feels I have gotten a bit off track, but I believe the point is that none-the-lessism will force a larger common ground and more parity, and require far less divisiveness. Although the implementation will be difficult, the most incensed volatility will likely come from those with the most to lose. Right now, worldwide, (if my Internet sources are accurate, which I don't believe them to be significantly off), there are only 2 millionaires for every 1000 people, and only 1 person with an annual income of over $100,000 for every 1000 people. So those currently with the money, (and the power), will be unhappy; but they will be an unhappy minority. I have also discovered that there are less than 2,000 billionaires in the world.

So here is my plan to seed the world wealth bank:

Utilizing the same timeline as above, of full implementation tomorrow, one year ago those funds over one million dollars, of all individual millionaires and billionaires, were frozen. From those individual's accounts with more than one billion dollars, the surplus (over $999,999,999.99) was contributed to the world wealth bank. These 2,000 former billionaires and the other 15 million millionaires were then given 90 days to publicly decide if they would remain a millionaire, or if they would contribute the surplus to the world wealth bank. Those individuals deciding to keep their funds over $1,000,000, are designated Legacy Millionaires. Upon the death of a Legacy Millionaire, surplus funds over $999,999.99 are contributed to the world wealth bank. Any Legacy Millionaire with more than $999,999,999.99 in their personal parity account at the beginning of a fiscal quarter, (January 1, April 1, July 1, or October 1), will contribute the surplus to the world wealth bank. Anyone not a Legacy Millionaire with more than $999,999.99 in their personal parity account at the beginning of a fiscal quarter will contribute the surplus to the world wealth bank.

From this point, (tomorrow morning), business concern profits and rent fees will also begin flowing into the world wealth bank. And the transition for transfer of property is not really a transition and it is absolutely not a transfer. At midnight each piece of previously owned unmovable property becomes an unowned entity. This will cause much consternation...

It feels good to own land; to say "I own my home." I have been there. It made me feel powerful and in control. And to own other property as well, strengthens that feeling. To be a Land "Lord" --- it really is a bit like Playing God. But for the renter, where I have also been, it can be demeaning to have someone lord their land over you. It creates an additional unnecessary and divisive Us and Them power dynamic. The same is true for a business owner and his or her employees. To suggest, as I am doing, that we should take this away, will be met with much resistance.

For many It will feel like I am tearing a little hole in the center of their very being; ripping out a piece of their guts; or their heart; or their ego. For many it will change their identity; they may feel lost; confused; uncertain and afraid; all because of a delusion of power and control; a misconception that has suddenly been shown for what it is.

For some it will allow them to take stock of the remainder of their identity; their relationships with family and friends; their productivity within and outside of their job; their past, present and future contributions to community and humanity; their sense of peace and calm as found through a personal spirituality; and their continued efforts toward lifelong learning and progress.

And for others it will be understood.

The Philosopher Epictetus (55 - 135 CE), said that nothing can truly be taken from us. He maintained that inner peace begins when we stop saying "I have lost it" and instead say "it has been returned to where it came from." (Other-Worldly Happiness; January 7, 2012)

For the sake of the majority of the 7,490,028,600 people on this planet (in this moment), we have to realize that we have nothing to lose.

This week I read the short story "Liking What You See: A Documentary"---(written by Ted Chiang in his collection "Stories of Your Life and Others"). The narrative revolves around a technology that blocks the neural pathways dedicated to evaluating the physical beauty, (or lack thereof), in another individual or even oneself. The proponents of this technology are working to "assist" maturity and promote social equality by discouraging our natural / instinctive proclivity to judge each other based (even in part) on appearance, and, (by suppressing this instinct), turn the tables on exploitation and media manipulation. The opponents in the story are touting education, the freedom to choose, an acquired maturity, a truthful sense of reality, and a reasoned appreciation of beauty; and they are suggesting the possibility of a "new boss" with a constituency that has been physically blinded to the threat and/or reality of continued exploitation and manipulation. These are all reasonable arguments from each faction's foundation of basic beliefs. Amidst the back and forth within the story, a college professor makes the following observation and asks the following question:

"This debate isn't just about commercials and cosmetics, it's about determining what's the appropriate relationship between the mind and the body. Are we more fully realized when we minimize the physical part of our natures?"

There are many (seemingly) good arguments both for 1) sublimating one's physical nature in favor of one's mind and for 2) seeking a reasoned, natural balance. But by including the word "reasoned" am I already sublimating my physical nature? Or, if I exclude the word "reasoned" am I sublimating my mind? It is interesting that in most body / mind debates the division is between favoring the mind or finding a mind-body balance. I have seldom if ever, (at least in my adult life), participated in an argument for unrestricted or widespread physical free rein.

With that last thought perhaps a more equitable approach would be to first work at an understanding of how we might define a natural balance between body and mind, and then determine what a "disproportionate" amount of reason is. Though I am uncertain where this will go, I will first examine truthfulness (because it feels relevant), and then I will look at the beliefs and arguments summarized in the first paragraph. At that point I will assess progress; if any.

Am I able to uphold the integrity of truthfulness within myself if I favor my mind over my physical nature? Or is the truth of the mind a higher order truth than that of the body, thereby allowing (or even demanding) favoritism? In previous written thought I have said,

"Be Yourself, to yourself and to others. And to this end I absolutely believe in uninhibited truthfulness to oneself; you must first know yourself, and only then can you be yourself." (Uninhibited Happiness June 23, 2012).

But I go on to say that complete uninhibited truthfulness is an unattainable Ideal, and potentially dysfunctional; so I can never completely know myself, and I can never completely be myself. But alternatively, if, (as Jean Paul Sartre believed), "Existence precedes Essence" then perhaps I have it upside down. Perhaps I must first be myself in order to know myself. Perhaps truthfulness does begin within my physical nature and perhaps excessive thought (like superficial thought) is delusional thought.

Or perhaps the foundation of inner truthfulness is not an either/or...

And perhaps beliefs and arguments are a distraction...

And perhaps the foundation of inner truthfulness is not inner...

I want to look at some of the beliefs and arguments, (from within the story), for and against assisted maturity.

Since both sides argue against exploitation and manipulation, it is a wash. The proponent's claim is accurate, and the opponent's position that there will always be someone in power, able to take advantage, is valid.

... ... ... ... ...

On second thought, perhaps it is the remaining beliefs and arguments that are a wash. Because both sides are championing social equality, (the proponents through technology and the opponents through choice), the methods may be less relevant than any unexpected, unplanned, or unwanted consequence. To this end, perhaps one question we should ask is, "As I work toward social equality, how do I prefer to be manipulated?" In this scenario, those being manipulated and exploited pre-neural blockage are apparently comfortably oblivious; but those who choose to physically block neural pathways have become actively complicit and are potentially subjecting their self to being taken advantage of in other, perhaps less comfortable, ways. Put this way, it becomes a "Trolley" question; expeditious social equality appears to be the greater good, but if I choose "expeditious" I am repulsed by the thought of the personal physical intervention. This also clarifies the conflict in the story as an acknowledgement that we are not pitting mind against body, but rather we are choosing between the midpoint of the spectrum and its far end; balance and sublimation; freedom to choose and conformity; learning from mistakes and learning by rote; difficult and easy.

I appear to be making some progress; I have traveled from body and mind to body-and-mind-balance; but I still have a divide to cross; I have to keep moving; no rest periods; think-action; back-and-forth; inside-and-out; upside-and-down; building the bridge; to-the-other-side; and back; and-again. There.

If asked for a one-to-one-to-one association with the mind and the body in one column, action and thought in a second column, and outward and inward in the third column, I am confident that a very large majority of us would associate mind-thought-inward and body-action-outward. I have spent a Lifetime structuring my beliefs, thoughts, arguments, and actions in this manner. I would like to reconsider.

Instinct is a non-verbal body-thought.
Experience is action interpreted.
My mind is movement; outward.

These elements trip all over each other. Perhaps my Mind requires a fundamental Biota consisting of my Body and Inward and Outward movement of Thoughts and Actions. Perhaps my Mind IS this Biota as one whole.

That would mean that the appropriate relationship between mind and body---the natural balance---is that which exists in any given moment; their relationship is simultaneously ephemeral and inseparable.

And, the foundation of inner truthfulness is not an either/or; nor is it exclusively inner.

And, an amount of reason would be disproportionate if one, in any manner, sublimates any other component of this biota; including one's physical nature.

And, excessive thought that ultimately manifests as action, is not delusional thought; unless one or more of these Mind Biota components are artificially, deceitfully, or forcibly suppressed.

And, I believe that every thought, to some degree, manifests as action in this moment and/or in a future moment.

And, we are more fully realized when we work to know all the elements, and allow them to talk to each other; unimpeded.

And, it will never be easy.

And, we will never be 100% fully realized.

This concept of one super-organism, constantly fine-tuning contrast and balance, does not work against any basic beliefs but rather asks us to listen carefully to the groans and creaks and pops coming from the structure we have built upon this foundation, and from there work toward an uninhibited truthfulness with oneself. An Existentialist can still focus on outward experience. A Buddhist Monk can still focus on inward enlightenment. A Kinetic Hedonist can still focus on the body. An Epistemologist can still focus on the mind. A member of the herd or flock can still focus on following. An individual can still focus on serious thought.

And I, as a serious thinker, must focus on the one whole---the Mind Biota---in an effort to move closer to the unattainable Ideal of Happiness.

I love a good analogy.

This week I am reading "10% Human: How Your Body's Microbes Hold the Key to Health and Happiness." This fascinating book, written by Alanna Collen, is taking me on a compelling and thought-provoking journey from my mouth to my gut to my brain, and to other biological landscapes that provide an entirely new microbial perspective on modern disease and health.

Within this backdrop, I have found a striking similarity to our recent political landscape. If you consider the digestive system, from the mouth (input) to it's delta (output), as (in addition to the skin) an outer layer or surface in the sense that it provides potential entry points into one's body, then we can equate the gut to a border, the body to our nation, the immune system to political policy, the cells to people, inflammation to aggressiveness, life-threatening infectious disease to waves of life-threatening immigrants, autoimmune diseases to counterproductive casualties, and the reactive microbiota to police action.

The quote immediately below is taken directly and exactly from the book; and the one following is the same quote but with the above equivalencies inserted [in brackets].

"This inflammation comes in the form of an overactive immune system, reacting to the illegal immigrants crossing the gut's border into the body... ...Sometimes the body's own cells get caught in the cross-fire, resulting in autoimmune diseases."

This [aggressiveness] comes in the form of an overactive [political] system, reacting to the illegal immigrants crossing the [nation's] border into the [beloved homeland]... ...Sometimes the [homeland's] own [people] get caught in the cross-fire, resulting in [counterproductive casualties].

Her point (as I take it) is, that since we have cleansed the body of many dangerous infectious diseases (such as smallpox, cholera, tuberculosis, diphtheria, polio, and measles) and dethroned infectious disease as the leading cause of death (as it was in 1900), our immune system, utilizing the body's microbiota, has overreacted to less dangerous threats, creating autoimmune diseases.

She suggests that in the body the solution is to introduce a greater diversity of microbes; thereby enabling greater regulation of the excitable immune response, thus lessening the characteristic inflammation that leads to autoimmune disease and other health issues.

I might suggest that in our nation the solution is to introduce a greater diversity of peoples and opinions; thereby enabling greater regulation of extreme political policy, thus reducing aggressive police action and its resulting counterproductive casualties.

Others are suggesting that the cleansing must continue; insisting that the political policy is necessary to ensure safety and security, and warning that a greater diversity will only lead to a breakdown in order and discipline.

When we wage germ warfare, (a personal war against unwanted germs), the purpose is to keep unhealthy or dangerous elements (i.e. foreign bodies in the form of bacteria, viruses, fungi and archaea) outside the sacred confines of one's personal body.

When we wage cultural warfare, the purpose is to keep unhealthy or dangerous elements (i.e. foreign bodies in the form of zealots, subversives, misfits, and intruders) outside the sacred confines of our beloved homeland.

Unfortunately, in both of these instances, there is a portion, (perhaps a large majority), of these banished and unwanted outsiders that are not only "not" unhealthy or dangerous, but if allowed entry would add to the health and well-being of the host body or nation.

But because of our fear we are left with a practice of discriminatory, indiscriminate cleansing.

Because of our fear we exercise power to keep those with power, in power.

Because of our fear we pretend to be in control instead of choosing to recognize, acknowledge, embrace, and learn from our fear.

Because of our fear we abide by prevailing opinion and we do not ask hard questions.

Because of our fear we remain the silent majority; obviously in action and results, if not also in word.

Because of our fear...

...discriminatory, indiscriminate, harmful cleansing.

For as long as I can remember, I have been working to turn subjectivity into objectivity; with very limited success. I have had no success turning lead into gold either; though I understand it is possible. I have however, turned ketchup into marinara. Dictionary.com gives a definition of alchemy as "any magical power or process of transmuting a common substance, usually of little value, into a substance of great value." I would like to examine the latter two alchemies to determine if these successful processes may aid me in my quest for objectivity.

First, An Examination of Values:

In the early and middle years of my search for unequivocal objectivity, I placed a below-market value on subjectivity. But in my travels I have come to realize that the trailhead for any search for Truth is subjectivity. From there the path has to wind through varying degrees and gradations of both subjectivity and objectivity to move toward Truth. I have found some shortcuts, (such as rational skepticism), but I now believe there is no bypass around subjectivity. Consequently, I have more fully recognized the market value of subjectivity. And, though I have always insisted that an ultimate Truth is unattainable, I have also stressed the importance of diligently seeking Truth believing the search will move me closer, and the proximity will result in progress; and for me, this proximity to Truth as pursued through rational thought remains highly-prized. So to find a definitive process that would consistently transmute subjectivity to objectivity (for me) is alchemy. I also maintain my description of the other processes as alchemy, because I do value gold over lead and a properly-made marinara over (even my homemade) ketchup.

An Examination of Lead to Gold:

I have read that it is possible to extract gold from lead, and scientists have successfully changed bismuth to gold, but the process to do so will apparently always cost considerably more than the value created in the minute amount of gold produced. Could the same be true of my efforts to transform subjectivity into objectivity? Or, if my efforts cost far more than my tangible results, are there intangibles that will lessen, or possibly eclipse that value gap?

An Examination of Ketchup to Marinara:

One evening this past week I texted my daughter, (she was at work and I was going to bed), to let her know that the grilled chicken, spaghetti squash and marinara sauce were in the refrigerator. The next morning she asked me what I did differently with my marinara sauce. I told her, "nothing. I made it the same as I always do." She said it was bad, so I pulled the bowl off the bottom shelf, from behind the beer, to check it out as she was pulling a jar of my homemade ketchup off the top shelf to show me it was different. For approximately 8 hours my ketchup led a double life as marinara. It was late, she was tired, the ketchup was front and center on the top shelf, with a tomato base, and I had unknowingly practiced the ancient art of alchemy, magically turning ketchup into marinara.

She believed, and it was.

...For 8 hours.

What if I had never told her? Would she have lived her whole Life believing a delusion? Or would she have dug deeper to find the Truth? And what if someone presented her with this new Truth 50 years from now, (shortly after I had passed on), trying to convince her that marinara was actually ketchup? Would she believe them? Or would she continue to believe the Truth she had known for a majority of her Life? And how does this all apply to my attempts to turn subjectivity into objectivity?

Lastly, An Examination of Subjectivity to Objectivity:

Subjectivity is a common substance; much more common than objectivity. And because of its prevalence, subjectivity is typically considered to be of a lesser value than objectivity, which is why I frequently convince myself that my outlook is based more on facts and certainty than on opinions and uncertainty; even when it is not---(which I believe to be the case more often than not).

Since I am unable to efficiently extract objectivity from subjectivity, I believe I must embrace and work to understand subjectivity in order to more readily recognize it as it runs alongside my objectivity; this will not only raise the value of subjectivity but it will also aid in my learning and progress, bringing me closer to Truth. Additionally I believe there is added value to a rational partnership as opposed to an adversarial estrangement based on a perceived difference in values. This week, in a meeting, I found myself saying the words, "Your subjectivity is not a negative, and your efforts to turn it into objectivity will devalue this process!" Wow! From my mouth? Yes. In some circumstance I now find subjectivity to be equally as valuable, or even more valuable, than objectivity.

But this (immediately above) is an argument for valuing subjectivity, and not necessarily an argument for working to find objectivity through subjectivity. It is important to recognize each for what it is, and to understand that (theoretically) they are inseparable. There may come a point where one believes they have found a Truth, and they may very well be correct, but I believe, (as do many others), that rationality requires some degree of uncertainty to ensure continued skeptical examination and further questioning. Certainty kills effort. Uncertainty is the critical intangible, as a byproduct of subjectivity, that perpetuates effort. Therefore I must believe that subjectivity and objectivity, to some degree, are always inseparable; and I must always start again at the trailhead---subjectivity---to gain ground on Truth and to make tangible progress.

To believe subjectivity is (or can be) unequivocal objectivity is delusional. To believe in certainty is delusional. To believe something simply because you have always believed it is delusional. I cannot magically turn subjectivity into objectivity. But I can reason through subjectivity in order to balance it with objectivity. I believe in most instances I should work to see that this balance favors a rational objectivity, but in order to determine this with a lesser degree of uncertainty, I must stay well-acquainted with subjectivity.

Just because something is front and center, on the top shelf, with a tomato base, does not make it marinara.