hopelesshappiness.com

The Ring of Gyges, from Plato, the Republic, Book II:

"They say that to do injustice is, by nature, good; to suffer injustice, evil; but that the evil is greater than the good. And so when men have both done and suffered injustice and have had experience of both, not being able to avoid the one and obtain the other, they think that they had better agree among themselves to have neither; hence there arise laws and mutual covenants; and that which is ordained by law is termed by them lawful and just. This they affirm to be the origin and nature of justice; --it is a mean or compromise, between the best of all, which is to do injustice and not be punished, and the worst of all, which is to suffer injustice without the power of retaliation; and justice, being at a middle point between the two, is tolerated not as a good, but as the lesser evil, and honoured by reason of the inability of men to do injustice. For no man who is worthy to be called a man would ever submit to such an agreement if he were able to resist; he would be mad if he did. Such is the received account, Socrates, of the nature and origin of justice.

Now that those who practice justice do so involuntarily and because they have not the power to be unjust will best appear if we imagine something of this kind: having given both to the just and the unjust power to do what they will, let us watch and see whither desire will lead them; then we shall discover in the very act the just and unjust man to be proceeding along the same road, following their interest, which all natures deem to be their good, and are only diverted into the path of justice by the force of law. The liberty which we are supposing may be most completely given to them in the form of such a power as is said to have been possessed by Gyges the ancestor of Croesus the Lydian. According to the tradition, Gyges was a shepherd in the service of the king of Lydia; there was a great storm, and an earthquake made an opening in the earth at the place where he was feeding his flock. Amazed at the sight, he descended into the opening, where, among other marvels, he beheld a hollow brazen horse, having doors, at which he stooping and looking in saw a dead body of stature, as appeared to him, more than human, and having nothing on but a gold ring; this he took from the finger of the dead and re ascended. Now the shepherds met together, according to custom, that they might send their monthly report about the flocks to the king; into their assembly he came having the ring on his finger, and as he was sitting among them he chanced to turn the collet of the ring inside his hand, when instantly he became invisible to the rest of the company and they began to speak of him as if he were no longer present. He was astonished at this, and again touching the ring he turned the collet outwards and reappeared; he made several trials of the ring, and always with the same result-when he turned the collet inwards he became invisible, when outwards he reappeared. Whereupon he contrived to be chosen one of the messengers who were sent to the court; where as soon as he arrived he seduced the queen, and with her help conspired against the king and slew him, and took the kingdom. Suppose now that there were two such magic rings, and the just put on one of them and the unjust the other; no man can be imagined to be of such an iron nature that he would stand fast in justice. No man would keep his hands off what was not his own when he could safely take what he liked out of the market, or go into houses and lie with any one at his pleasure, or kill or release from prison whom he would, and in all respects be like a God among men. Then the actions of the just would be as the actions of the unjust; they would both come at last to the same point. And this we may truly affirm to be a great proof that a man is just, not willingly or because he thinks that justice is any good to him individually, but of necessity, for wherever any one thinks that he can safely be unjust, there he is unjust. For all men believe in their hearts that injustice is far more profitable to the individual than justice, and he who argues as I have been supposing, will say that they are right. If you could imagine any one obtaining this power of becoming invisible, and never doing any wrong or touching what was another's, he would be thought by the lookers-on to be a most wretched idiot, although they would praise him to one another's faces, and keep up appearances with one another from a fear that they too might suffer injustice."

I would like to argue that "justice" is not a compromise; that it is not simply a lesser evil; and that "injustice" is not more profitable. I look around though and every day, I see examples. I see him hiding behind some rules; and her crouching beneath her Title; and they are camouflaging their true nature with hundred dollar bills; and we are cowering in fear, cautiously peeking through our narrow eye slits, inside our masks pf pretentiousness. I cannot argue that "justice" is not a compromise; or that it is not a lesser evil; or that "injustice" is not more profitable. When I am able to be invisible, I am able to practice injustice; guiltlessly.

Or am I?

I could argue faith; and/or belief. But I won't. Even in this regard, justice is exclusionary; and injustice is profitable. And most certainly, from rationality, it appears that justice is a compromise; and a lesser evil. At first glance.

I want to look deeper.

I'll start with future generations. I believe it rational to argue that while injustice may be more profitable for me, its impact will be detrimental to my granddaughter. ...But in a sense, this is the same cautionary tale; encouraging me to use my power to further advance the causes and/or well-being of my direct descendants. In order to account for the well-being of all members of all future generations, I must begin in this moment. I look around though and every day I see examples...

So I am where I began...

At this point, I could argue that I see/feel the wisdom of justice and its critical significance to the survival of future generations, and that I must start with me, and I must lead by example, and I must have faith that increasing numbers will ultimately further this progress as well; and, (if I must), I must remember that my granddaughter's survival is also dependent upon this all-encompassing justice. And I do argue this. And I do have faith. But I also have a sense of urgency.

I feel it is necessary that justice become more than the lesser evil, sooner rather than later. I feel we must move past a pretentious political correctness more quickly than our current pace. Again, I believe that upcoming generations are advancing in this direction, but (also) again, I have a strong sense of urgency...

I could argue for truthfulness...

But when I am truthful, I am shunned.

And when I am nice, progress is slow.

I have struggled with this before...

The immediate lack of productivity that follows truthfulness, caused in part by the ego-inflated sense of outrage and/or hurt feelings, discourages truthfulness. But I might argue that the more frequent the truthfulness, the less the hurt and outrage, and the more possible the progress and productivity; and the more likely one may feel compelled to remove their mask of pretentiousness.

I encourage widespread truthfulness; and I realize that those least likely to practice this are those most likely to exhibit outrage, defensiveness, and hurt; and most likely to believe their mask does represent truthfulness. And I also realize that to be effective, any effort toward widespread truthfulness, must be accompanied by a mutual ability to argue openly, rationally, and reflectively.

This seems a tall order.

In this moment, I am discouraged.

Looking to future generations, I am encouraged.

I am in this moment.

My sense of urgency is not satisfied.

I can see that political correctness is a step. I can see that we are closer to justice today, than we were yesterday. I believe the next step to be widespread truthfulness. I am lamenting the pace. And I am repeating myself.

I believe that widespread truthfulness, accompanied by a mutual ability to argue openly, rationally, and reflectively, will lead to a recognition that I am no more and no less necessary than any other individual from the past, present, or future. I believe that this recognition will lead us to a much larger, (ultimately a universal), common ground. I believe that this common ground is essential for our survival.

I believe I have said these things before. But perhaps not in this order or context.

I am impatient.

I am frustrated.

I even feel a bit desperate.

I will continue to be truthful.

Except when I am not.

I am now asking myself if widespread truthfulness is the next step? Or have I simply filled in a blank?

What about skepticism?

Or hard work?

Or compassion?

Or education?

Or spirituality?

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

In this moment, these alternatives feel like strong, necessary supporting characters.

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

I still believe truthfulness to be the next step.

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

I have found that when truthfulness is effectively coupled with mutually open, rational, reflective argument, time seems to move in slow motion allowing for more rapid understanding and progress. It is as if our focus narrows and widens, just enough to lovingly embrace the ebb and flow of information and consideration, while excluding unnecessary distraction.

There is a neurological phenomenon called tachypsychia that works on one's perception of time. For example, during extreme stress, (such as an accident), one may perceive time to lengthen, seemingly allowing for more rapid and more efficient decision-making.

Truthfulness, (as tachypsychia), is a next step.

Though my sense of urgency is not satisfied, it is good to see that we are capable.

I will continue to be truthful.

Except when I am not.

For me, in this moment, justice is a lesser evil.

For all of humanity, in all of existence, justice is the greatest good.

I had a long conversation
That spoke to temptation
And left me to feeling all strange.

It was not, the words that we spoke
But their bounce, that awoke
An inkling to think about change.

Today I was told, "You are unusual." This statement was followed by further complimentary support, and though I initially took it this way, it disturbed me. It created a nagging discomfiture. I believe it did so because each one of us is unique and unusual in some way(s), and I do not feel I should be praised or elevated for my humanity. Because I have a unique skill set that meshes productively with a specific circumstance, merely means that I am lucky; it does not mean that I am superior, gifted, or deserving of special attention.

We live in a culture of conformity. To be singled out as "important" in any regard, in the context of our busy routine, is bound to inflate an ego. It should not. Instead, it should encourage one to more actively seek circumstance that suits skills.

I suppose some may say that this is a rather deterministic outlook; (in that productivity is necessary, and reason is necessary for maximal productivity, and to be singled out is likely to disrupt reason). Others may see it as humility. Because I am discomfitted by undue praise, and because I see most praise as unnecessary and undue, and because I don't haphazardly throw out compliments to others, I suppose my equitable outlook is rather deterministic. I can live with that. I am free to choose, and my choice may even influence an outcome; but it will never stand alone.

For every moment spent reflecting on one's own personal importance, there are surrounding mega-multiple moments spent (by others) oblivious to the one's self-aggrandizement. And in this sense---from this perspective---it feels like a ridiculous waste of effort to feel important. This is not to say that effort should not be expended on actively seeking circumstance that suits skills. And it is not to say that one will not be tempted by a siren song of fanciful adulation. This week's thought is meant to encourage more efficient productivity, and to temper these tempting inclinations, with some realistic perspective.

This week, as the moments passed, each time the wispy nature of my searching thought began to take shape and tantalizingly dance to and fro, it would stretch and thin and curl, and ultimately slip through my grasping fingers.

I want to understand... ...something; something related to understanding---I think. Or I might think it is related to understanding because I don't understand; and because in a sense I guess everything is related to understanding. It began, (and ended), with my inability to determine if my self-perception largely originates from within or from without. I would like to think one, yet I am quick to judge others as being largely bent toward the other; and the only difference between us in this regard, is self-perception; which makes me think that I am mistaken; which makes me think that without silently creeps within to a point of saturation; which makes me think that I am very possibly---that I may be---that I probably am---completely without. And this is just the beginning; (and the end).

As I have circled this initial challenge---(conundrum?)---this week, I have also stumbled over smart, stupid, and ignorant. Does stupid perpetuate ignorant? Is ignorant totally unrelated to stupid? To what extent is smart a prerequisite for ignorant? Will a self-perception of any one of these provide advantage? If I see smart and stupid as relative, measurable / comparable intelligence, and I see ignorant as being oblivious, uninformed, and/or misinformed, then the questions above become somewhat leading. And this gleaning, so far, has given me a three-legged, open-air platform of uncertainty and confusion; (of course there are more than three legs, but this week it is these three that have borne the heft of my thought).

Is there a way to build walls, (with windows, of course), and a roof?

Or even a canopy to limit my exposure to the elements?

I am doubtful that I can build it large enough, (or secure enough), for any one but myself.

And even if I figure that out, I believe most, (and probably all), would ignore/refuse my invitation to come in out of the wind and the rain.

It appears to me that most individuals want---(need?)---this interaction that influences---(and skews?)---perception.

It appears to me that most people are satisfied---(happy?)---living without.

It might be easier, (and more secure), to build walls and a roof; but by doing so I believe it would become solitary confinement. Some have found this preferable. I don't believe it would work for me.

A canopy might work... ...when weather is good. But when a strong wind knocks it down, do I expend effort to immediately raise it again? Or do I pack up and move away from the wind? Or do I work to hold my ground, understand, and perhaps utilize that wind? Though this last option feels the most beneficially productive, it is essentially the same as my original, open-air, raised platform of uncertainty and confusion.

So perhaps any effort toward long-term shelter is counterproductive.

But if this is the case, then I am, again, completely without.

Unless...

Perhaps...

I could construct a retractable canopy to be adjusted according to circumstance. If done properly, this might also create the potential for an inviolable within.

I believe there will be many moments in which my within is only a kernel compared to the magnitude of without; but I also believe that the strength of this kernel...

Regardless, the forever substantive influence of without, (even---especially---when it offers an illusion of certainty), must be balanced by some degree of within in order to maintain and recognize the reality of uncertainty and confusion.

I do not understand, because I should not understand.

My self-perception must include uncertainty and confusion.

When I weave the perception of another, (or others), from without into my personal platform, I must also retreat into that kernel of within to know that it is okay that I am simultaneously smart, and stupid, and ignorant. Even---especially---from within, I do understand how seemingly contradictory aspects of "me" can and should ebb and flow dependent upon circumstance and perspective. This week, these aspects, (or legs supporting my personal platform), of smart, stupid, and ignorant felt weighty and important; and I believe their seemingly contradictory nature, (after being personally identified with each one), created considerable confusion, which is where I began.

...And which is where I shall end.

I have observed that one of my (not infrequent) fallback forms of relaxation is to talk about how hard I work. I have observed the same in others. It feels that our preferred (and natural) state is moving more and more towards one of relaxation and comfort, and further away from the necessity of hard work. Though the discomfort from a spate of hard work is generally short-term, if one works hard every day, one is in a perpetual state of short-term discomfort; and most of us don't mind saying so. I might argue though, that the satisfaction resulting from daily hard work is of a much higher quality; and, the daily hard work gives me less time for the aforementioned verbal relaxation.

I might also argue though, that quality of life is more directly associated with comfort than with adversity.

So which is it? Am I working hard in pursuit of comfort? Or am I working hard in pursuit of a greater depth of understanding through adversity? The reality for me is that I must work hard to (on occasion) enjoy comfort. And I believe this to be perceived reality for most of us. (As an aid in understanding individual perception), if I measured output and determined that Individual A works harder than Individual B, I suspect that 'A' may see 'B' as languorous or lazy, but 'B' likely perceives their self as working hard for their comfort. And some may also see 'B' as working smarter, though I would not forget to factor in happenstance, (i.e. Luck), as well.

Here I go again---learning something...

As I think about it, I believe humankind has always worked hard to move toward comfort. To seek food, shelter, and warmth, IS our natural state. Just because it has been more difficult in some eras than in others, and just because it is more difficult for Individual A than for Individual B, and just because I seem to learn and grow more from adversity than from comfort, does not mean that I should seek pain, and it does not mean that I should encourage pain, and it does not mean that I should inflict pain, and it does not mean that I should be angry with one who experiences less pain.

Pain and adversity will find each one of us, to some degree, throughout a Life. Nonetheless, I should also not equate pain or adversity with hard work.

Pain and adversity create a necessity for hard work. But one may also work hard by choice, thus creating some discomfort and pain, which in turn creates a greater potential for learning and growth, and potentially lessens adversity.

I should equate hard work with learning and growth.

And I believe it to be this love of expansion, and the satisfaction inherent in the process of learning, that drives one to choose a perpetual state of short-term discomfort.

This week, someone said to me, "It is not work, if you love what you do." I believe on a deeper level, this sentiment can be translated to, "It is not work, if you love where it takes you."