Life is broken and sad; and joyful and surprising. Bulbous and soft; and solemn and abrasive. Abrupt and incisive; and expressive and alluring. Desultory and decadent; and momentary and misunderstood. Gray and humble; and in demand and impertinent.
Yes; Life is rude.
Eccentric: Unusual, peculiar, odd, or strange; distinctive in nature or character.
Normal: Regular; conforming to the standard.
I am divided. I would like to be distinctive, but not peculiar. I don't mind being a regular guy, but I don't want to conform. I want the freedom of eccentric on the level playing field of normal, but I too often end up on the sideline. And I don't like the bench; especially the end of the bench; the end all the way opposite the water cooler; lonely; desolate.
In recent years I have practiced uncertainty and argued its necessity for learning and growth. I still do. But more and more frequently, (likely due to self-inflicted, increasing uncertainties), I struggle with diminished confidence and its resultant self-consciousness. There are occasions where this mixture of conflicting dynamics turns volatile; i.e. angry. This in turn drives me inward, only to (potentially) erupt later, catching some perhaps less-deserving innocents (and/or not-so-innocents) in its molten surge.
Uncertainty followed by insecurity followed by anger. Some self-confidence would curtail, (and possibly waylay much of), the anger. But if I practice more self-imposed self-confidence, I am, in a sense, also giving others permission to do the same, which is not consistent with my insistence on uncertainty. I look around and see that self-confidence is flourishing and, (like a fast-growing weed), threatening to choke out creativity, skepticism, and tolerance; as well as widen the (already-gaping) power and wealth gaps.
I don't believe additional self-confidence is the answer.
Yet, uncertainty makes me peculiar. Or does it simply make me feel peculiar? Perhaps it makes others see me as distinctive. Or is that wishful thinking? I know it does not make me normal. Look... "I know" something; that's Self-Confidence.
I missed a step above...
I missed two steps above...
Maybe more...
Yes. At least three...
Uncertainty should be followed by skeptical questioning. Skeptical questioning should be followed by mutual validation. Validation should be followed by rational argument. Rational argument should be followed by periodic agreement. The agreement must be periodic because this will also (periodically) create some degree of uncertainty, insecurity, and (possibly) self-consciousness, thus curtailing anger and avoiding damaging or dangerous. self-confidence. Consistent agreement, (for example by using one's power to surround oneself with "YesMen"), results in a surplus of self-confidence, thus eliminating all steps except agreement. I have the uncertainty, and I put forth many skeptical questions, but it is seldom that I am validated through rational argument and debate with another; hence, validation is replaced by insecurity and anger.
So I should amend my previous statement to say, "I don't believe artificial self-confidence, (i.e. Self-confidence sans extensive, legitimate, rational argument and debate), is the answer."
So if I cannot find a forum for debate, and if I cannot artificially inflate myself, then it appears that to tame my anger, I must somehow be okay with little or no validation; or I must stop asking questions, (rhetorical though they may be). I don't believe I am capable of quiescent acceptance; skeptical questioning has become habit. And by saying "I must somehow be okay with little or no validation," I believe I am actually saying "I must somehow be okay with insecurity."
We need two contextual definitions.
Looking at the clarification above, I AM okay with insecurity. I guess what I really mean to say is that "I would like to more frequently find a way from the sideline to the game on the field." Or perhaps what I really, really mean to say is that "I would like to find a playing field where the game is not rigged." But I believe this last hope is unrealistic for me in this Lifetime. Regardless, I will continue to actively pursue this end, and perhaps contribute to a push toward a day when the game is not rigged; or at least, less so.
This week I am reading "Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind" by Yuval Noah Harari. In his chapter "The Scent of Money" he says, "Christians and Muslims who could not agree on religious beliefs could nevertheless agree on monetary belief, because whereas religion asks us to believe in something, money asks us to believe that other people believe in something." Extending this thought beyond religion and money, this is how the game is rigged. It is easier to believe that others believe in something and agree to go along, than it is to autonomously question and argue. Conformism is the great leveler of playing fields, whether the game is religion, politics, philosophy, business, education, career choice, social connections, cultural norms, job loyalties, family loyalties, or any number of other connective dynamics that influence our daily existence and/or define a purpose. Even seemingly simplistic beliefs such as obtuse entertainment choices often appear to largely be a result of groupthink.
At the risk of being redundant, I need this reminder: It is easier to believe that others believe in something and agree to go along, than it is to autonomously question and argue.
So even though I am okay with insecurity and I believe discomfort is necessary, I still feel the pressure to get out on the field and conform. Or more accurately, conform so I can get out on the field. I may claim to believe, and I may claim that I go along because I believe, but unless I precede my agreement with skeptical questions and validate the claim through rational argument and debate, it is not belief, it is conformity. And like it or not, I cannot go through this process of questioning and argument one time and then for the rest of my Life claim a belief; I must be uncertain, question, and argue on every occasion that the belief may have influence. For some beliefs that may be every waking moment of every day. When I do this on the field---(I do occasionally get on the field)---I frequently get flagged for Delay of Game, which ultimately, (one way or another), forces me back to the sideline. But if I do not question and rationally argue, I am (again) not consistent with my insistence on uncertainty; and all the steps that should follow.
Alack and alas. It seems I must to the sideline go.
But in this process of shuttling forth and back---(mostly back)---have I resolved anything?
Perhaps...
Ultimately...
I have a better understanding of why, at minimum, a consistent low thrum of insecurity, and periodic pokes and prods of self-consciousness are natural and necessary. And if my nature tends toward the eccentric anyway, perhaps this understanding will alleviate some stress of self-consciousness, and diminish some anger.
Perhaps...
"So back then it was, but now it's not?"
"No. Now it is, but back then it wasn't."
"But you said it was."
"It was. But it got too late, too soon; and then what was, wasn't."
"And so that led to what is now?"
"Yes. Because if what was at the very onset, remained without evolving, or never was, then what is now would not be."
"So our reality would be different."
"Yes."
"Better?"
"Quite likely; for some."
"What about me?"
"It's hard to say, because if what was, never was, or was curtailed before it got too late, then you may have never been."
"Oh. ...So overall, not better?"
"You mean if you had never been?"
"Yes."
"Well, from your perspective standing here now, perhaps. But if you had never been, you would not have a perspective, so from that perspective, I believe our reality now would be better."
"Without Me!?"
"I'm sorry, but yes. Like it or not, it's not all about you; or me."
"So how would it be better?"
"Fewer."
"Fewer?"
"Fewer."
"Fewer what?"
"Imagined realities... social constructs... bureaucrats... laws... rituals... dollars... egos... followers... news outlets... You Tube videos... I could go on."
"So what you're really saying is...?"
"Yes."
"...fewer people."
"Yes."
"So you are advocating some sort of Genocide?"
"No! Absolutely Not! Though I do believe that it is not all about you or me, I also believe that no single individual, that has lived in the past, is living in this moment, or will live in the future, is any more or less necessary than any other single individual. And because I believe this, any planned, purposeful, dispassionate, or indifferent reduction in Life, by any means or to any end, is the most deplorable social construct any one could imagine. I say that, yet if you look around, we imagine it, construct it, and act on it every day; most commonly due to divisiveness. But even if it were for alleged betterment, as I've already said, in my mind there is no justification."
"So you mean to say that we should value the sanctity of a Life, because we are all created equal and we must be fair in our dealings with others?"
"No. I believe equality is a fairy tale and fairness a myth. What I mean is that I believe each individual has an autonomous essence that is indispensable to that individual's concept of self, and that this individual necessity is equally valid from any one individual to any other one individual, and from the past, to the present, to the future. Any other sense of self that does not come from one's essence within, but is built on and/or dependent upon any social construct such as status, wealth, position, or perceived importance is at least one step even further removed from its imagined reality."
"So what?"
"Good question."
"I mean, imagined or not, any perceived reality is still a reality; and I don't see individual necessity to ever be as valuable as, say, the productive contribution of a successful CEO, or your State Senator, or your child's Teacher, or even the hard-working volunteer at the Soup Kitchen."
"Good points."
"So, what?"
"I'm thinking."
"I'll wait."
... ... ... ... ...
... ... ... ... ...
"So; here's what. What was decided in the past snowballed into today and contrived the inevitability of this unprecedented plethora of social constructs and imagined realities that are not only potentially, but likely interpreted differently from one individual to another. These varying interpretations have in turn led to ever more complex entanglements of reality, further distancing each of us from our personal necessity. A simplified reconnection with one's personal necessity restores firm footing, and creates the potential for one individual to authentically touch another. No matter one's philosophical or spiritual leanings, no matter one's contributions or successes or failings, when we understand and actively acknowledge individual essence we validate the Humanity and the most basic reality of each and every other single individual throughout all of time. And by doing so, we add value to personal necessity. Unfortunately, many and maybe most of us are too busy to untangle and find firm footing."
"So you're repeating what you said earlier; that what was, led to what is, and now we're trapped."
"Not necessarily."
"Not necessarily what? What was? What is? Or not necessarily trapped?"
"We're not necessarily trapped."
"But to say that fewer people will make things better, yet to believe in the necessity of individual Life, and to follow with your acknowledgement that we're too busy, sounds like a trap to me. How then do we disentangle and impact what will be?"
"More."
"More?"
"Yes."
"Okay; I'll ask. More what?"
"Conversation... understanding... learning... tolerance... compassion... nature... humor... skepticism... vision... interdependence... trust... creativity.. I could go on; as could you."
"How do I know this will impact what will be? How do I know yours is not an imagined reality?"
"At this point, it is. It will only become real when it becomes a part of one's essence. When a majority of us reconnect with our personal essence."
"Has it become a part of your essence?"
"Not nearly as I believe it should be."
"Then how?"
"More... More of those qualities that will carry more of us to common ground."
"How can you be sure?"
"I'm not. Being skeptical, I don't know anything with certainty; not even my own mind. But based on the evidence, I strongly suspect."
"What single statement best sums up your strongest suspicions?"
"That it may not be too soon for too late."
"And you believe the answer is 'More'?"
"Yes. Look at the evidence."
From seemingly nothing...
...to active hope.
Yet each day, I wake up hungry.
And most days I work hard to learn and I work hard to be productive.
Yet many days, I wake up ravenous.
Because many days I wake up to find that for each morsel of sustainable progress, the void expands by the equivalent of a heaping spoonful.
And some days I find myself holding the spoon.
But is it better to postulate futility and add nothing to this ...nothingness?
Or is it better to continue to build and scale a small tumulus of substance for a better view?
For nine years, I have consciously chosen the latter; and in the past five years, it has become habit.
Some days that "better" view inspires. Some days it overwhelms.
Some days I feel I am moving away from nothing. Some days it appears I am moving toward nothing.
Am I building something from nothing?
Am I building something for nothing?
Is my effort productive?
Or are my mounds of ostensible substance merely a ceremonial burial of my hopes?
I am more satisfied building and less satisfied viewing.
Is my level of satisfaction because building includes (the more active) doing, and viewing compels thought?
Because doing may include busywork, and thought may include contemplation?
Because busywork is specious, and contemplation may include an inner spirituality?
Because speciousness is of this World, and spirituality may transcend this World?
Because when I am building I can fill the gaps, and when I am spiritual I must leap the gaps.
Some of the gaps are wide and deep.
Standing at the edge of some gaps, I am unable to see the other side.
Perhaps the vast expanse of nothing is merely a very wide, very deep gap.
Perhaps I would prefer burying my hopes to losing them, failing to leap a gap.
But in a sense, regardless, I am filling the gaps.
Either with productive significance, or with the remains of my hopes.
...or perhaps with some of both.
It is necessary to build.
It is necessary to view; and think; and contemplate.
The alternative is hope without substance.
...the alternative is nothing.
But because it is necessary, and because the alternative is to add nothing to nothingness, does not mean that my substance is substantial.
...or productive.
...it only means that my substance is hopeful.
Each day, I wake up hungry.
Many days, I wake up ravenous.
...as it will be.
