hopelesshappiness.com

This week, I said to someone, "Trust implies a leap of faith." They responded, "Trust is earned." It is fairly obvious that in this scenario, they held something I desired. Lost in this exchange though, is that their counter did not account for my preceding statement, which was, "I believe human relationships are built on trust." Their response indicated to me that either 1) they did not agree with this preceding statement, or 2) they (subconsciously or not) did not believe that this preceding statement applied to them; that the burden of building trust was on me. I believe this is (too) often typical of one (individual or organization) who holds all (or most) of the cards. Power often makes trust a one-way street and transforms the potential for a relationship into an impersonal transaction. In this circumstance, I was working my butt off to "earn" trust, and they were sitting back, lapping it up.

I cover these exchanges in considerable detail most significantly HERE and HERE, and also here and here.

In this previous written thought I differentiated market currencies and human currencies, which aid in identifying market transactions and human transactions, which in turn, (based on quantity and quality of transactions), will determine if a relationship is primarily a business relationship or a human relationship. In this previous written thought, trust was identified as a primary human currency. This week, (to this point), I have determined that this relationship is primarily a business relationship.

I was about halfway through the first paragraph above, when I realized that I had covered this ground before. I have now carefully reread the previous written thought noted above and I see no need to rehash it extensively; but I have included three paragraphs to further summarize, below:

"I believe that market transactions should trade in market currencies including money, power, influence, marketable goods and services transacted impersonally, policy and procedure, incentives, and consideration for the greater good."

"I believe that human transactions should trade in human currencies including consideration for the individual, productive two-way communication, emotional interaction, trust, compassion, understanding, responsibility, respect, and goodwill."

"Human transactions also trade in counterpart currencies including fear, manipulation, disrespect, distrust, cruelty, indifference, disdain, insensitivity, avoidance, scorn, rejection, and the seven (pride, anger, greed, lust, envy, gluttony, and sloth) deadly sins. There is a natural gravitational attraction between these counterpart currencies and market currencies."

I will let this week's circumstance continue to simmer, and see if any new thought bubbles up...

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

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

In 1754, Jean-Jacques Rousseau wrote,

"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!'"

In 1759, Adam Smith wrote,

"To what purpose is all the toil and bustle of the world? What is the end of avarice and ambition, of the pursuit of wealth, of power and preeminence?... To be observed, to be attended to, to be taken notice of with sympathy, complacency, and approbation, are all the advantages which we can propose to derive from it. The rich man glories in his riches because he feels that they naturally draw upon him the attention of the world. The poor man on the contrary is ashamed of his poverty. He feels that it places him out of sight of mankind. To feel that we are taken no notice of necessarily disappoints the most ardent desires of human nature. The poor man goes out and comes in unheeded, and when in the midst of a crowd is in the same obscurity as if shut up in his own hovel. The man of rank and distinction, on the contrary, is observed by all the world. Everybody is eager to look at him. His actions are the objects of public care. Scarce a word, scarce a gesture that fall from him will be neglected."

And perhaps most damningly, from the man some have dubbed as the Father of Capitalism, Adam Smith also wrote,

"The disposition to admire, and almost to worship, the rich and the powerful, and to despise, or, at least, to neglect persons of poor and mean condition is the great and most universal cause of the corruption of our moral sentiments."

In 1845, Henry Thoreau wrote,

"Most of the luxuries, and many of the so-called comforts of life, are not only not indispensable, but positive hindrances to the elevation of mankind. Man is rich in proportion to the number of things he can do without."

In 1860, John Ruskin wrote,

"Primarily, which is very notable and curious, I observe that men of business rarely know the meaning of the word 'rich'. At least, if they know, they do not in their reasoning allow for the fact, that it is a relative word, implying its opposite 'poor' as positively as the word 'north' implies its opposite 'south'... The force of the guinea you have in your pockets depends wholly on the default of a guinea in your neighbour's pocket. If he did not want it, it would be of no use to you; the degree of power it possesses depends accurately on the need or desire he has for it,---and the art of making yourself rich, in the ordinary mercantile economist's sense, is therefore equally and necessarily the art of keeping your neighbour poor."

In 1885, in a speech in Iowa, Henry George said,

"What more unnatural than this? There is nothing in nature like this poverty which today curses us... wherever we see one kind enjoying plenty, all creatures of that kind share it. No man, I think, ever saw a herd of buffalo, of which a few were fat and the great majority lean. No man ever saw a flock of birds, of which two or three were swimming in grease and the others all skin and bone. Nor in savage life is there anything like the poverty that festers in our civilisation... And yet the peculiar characteristic of this modern poverty of ours is that it is deepest where wealth most abounds."

In 1899, Thorstein Veblen wrote,

"Wealth has become the conventional basis of esteem. Its possession has become necessary in order to have any reputable standing in the community. It has become indispensable to acquire property in order to retain one's good name... Those members of the community who fall short of a relatively high standard of wealth will suffer in the esteem of their fellow men; and consequently they will suffer also in their own esteem."

In 1958, John Kenneth Galbraith wrote,

"People are poverty-stricken whenever their income, even if adequate for survival, falls markedly behind that of the community. Then they cannot have what the larger community regards as the minimum necessary for decency; and they cannot wholly escape, therefore, the judgment of the larger community that they are indecent."

(The quotes above were all either a) lifted from, or b) researched and found as a result of reading, the pages of the 2004 book "Status Anxiety" written by Alain de Botton.)

By today's standards, a lack of financial achievement and/or power makes one less trustworthy. By today's standards, a lack of financial achievement and/or power makes one indecent. Many relationships are layered with both market and human transactions utilizing both market and human currencies. In any relationship that is, to any degree, a business relationship, it is rare to find both parties on completely equal footing; one will almost always hold at least one or two more cards than the other. And on this uneven playing surface, there is an uphill, and there is a downhill.

In the context of this week's written thought, the definition of trust is peppered with words that imply uncertainty and the necessity of a leap; words that include belief, faith, confidence, reliance, and expectation. To say "trust is earned" implies that "trust" can be a certainty, and is most likely uttered by the party standing uphill; uttered with an expectation of uphill effort on the part of the 'looked-down-upon' party, and with an unrealistic expectation that this effort should ultimately result in acceptably less unequal footing. Additionally, what the uphill party often fails to see is the gap, (varying in width and depth according to circumstance), at their feet; and, in many cases, they fail to comprehend the additional challenge of an uphill leap after an uphill struggle. This week I have been asked to struggle uphill. I have not yet reached that divide, and I do not know if the individual looking down from on high is aware of that divide. I may yet be asked to make that uphill leap. It would be nice, instead, if at some point in my efforts I looked up to see my inquisitor standing next to me on my side of the gap with a trusting smile and a warm embrace. Failing that, at the very least, when I reach the gap, I may need a friendly hand reaching out to help me across.

Based on the business relationship to this point, I am not optimistic; yet I still struggle, uphill...

4/19 POSTSCRIPT: Yesterday, in the midst of my uphill struggle, I looked up to see her standing next to me with (what appeared to be) a trusting smile. I expressed appreciation, looked away for a moment, and today when I turned back, she had easily leapt back across to her side of the gap and, with folded arms and a smug shrug, she waited to see if I would follow. I guess her short visit reinforced her sense of power and soothed her conscience.

I turned, and walked back downhill.

"Bye Felicia."

The process is quite simple:

1. You create a personal profile at rankle.biz, which includes an initial self-ranking questionnaire. By doing so you are then able to subjectively rank other members and you are giving permission to be subjectively ranked by other members; all anonymously.
2. From our member list, you locate the member you would like to rank, and confirm you have identified the correct person. This confirmation process is a multiple choice selection of city of residence, place of employment, phone number, a previous city of residence, a previous employer, and a pet or a hobby; (each confirmation question will present six choices, and you must have correct responses to 5 of the 6 questions to move on). This process is in place to prevent ranking the wrong person, (e.g. John Smith), and also to ensure that you have more than just a passing acquaintance with this person.
3. Once confirmed, you will proceed to the questionnaire which consists of 50 questions in which you will rank the individual (in each question) on a scale of 1 to 25. Upon completion your questionnaire will go into our queue, and will not be released for viewing until the following qualifying measures are met: A) You have completed a minimum of 10 questionnaires on 10 separate individuals; and B) The composite average of all questionnaires completed by you is greater than 500. (After being released from the queue, if the composite average falls below 500, all questionnaires you have completed will be placed back into the queue until the composite average again exceeds 500. This qualification is set in place to encourage thoughtful feedback).
4. Any questionnaire, in which the "time spent" completing the questionnaire falls below 75% of your average time spent on all questionnaires (after the first 10), will be flagged and deleted, and you will receive notification, and be given one opportunity to redo the questionnaire.
5. No member will ever see an individual ranking. Members will have access to their composite score only after they have been ranked by 10 questionnaires completed by 10 other individual members. The composite score will be broken down by question, section or area, and overall ranking, and will be updated with each completed questionnaire. The member will also be able to see the number of completed questionnaires.
6. You will not be allowed to complete an additional questionnaire on the same member before six months have passed since completing the previous accepted questionnaire. This also applies to the self-ranking questionnaire. Completing an additional questionnaire every six months, will not eliminate previous questionnaires. All validated questionnaires will remain and continue to contribute to a member's composite score.
7. The questionnaire is designed to flag anomalies. All flagged / skewed data will be pulled from the queue for further analysis and determination. Anomalies may include, but are not limited to, comparatively low scores, comparatively high scores, consistently similar scores---(e.g. Inordinate number of 12's and 13's in one questionnaire), comparatively (as measured against other members) speedy completion times, or inconsistent responses to similar questions.

Our goal is constructive, creative tension, that will lead to productive change, through truthful, thoughtful feedback. We recommend, (although most likely in vain), that you not share your score with others. This is not a contest. We firmly believe that to objectify an individual in such a way diminishes and degrades, and perpetuates the myth, (that has become standard practice for many bureaucrats), that an individual can and should be reduced to a mere number. Productive change will be more efficient with little to no distraction.

The areas we measure at rankle.biz are as follows:

• Empathy.
• Work Ethic.
• Accountability.
• Passion: (defined as serious, careful consideration).
• Willingness to Help.
• Sense of Humor.
• Desire for Learning and Growth.

It is important to recognize that these areas are as subjectively perceived by others and (in the self-ranking) by oneself; and it will be interesting to note (by oneself) if, over time, one's self-ranking moves to align with one's composite scores, or if one's composite scores move to align with one's self-ranking. The "productive change" encouraged in our goal is upward movement in the lower ranking, (whichever it may be), to align more closely with the higher ranking, followed by coordinated upward movement in both rankings conjointly.

It sounds like a great idea...

I am mortal. If I were to question the existence of an infinite God, and if I were to seek alternatives, I might say that Humanity is God; perhaps not immortal; perhaps not all-knowing; perhaps not all-caring; perhaps not merciful; perhaps not just; perhaps not all-powerful. But yet, I can see my active individual hope for goodness and for continued existence beyond this Life, within the future of Humanity.

Perhaps it would be more pleasing to the ear, and less adversarial, to say that the whole of Humanity, past, present, and future, is my God to be served for the duration of my existence upon this Earth. If I were to believe in the existence of an infinite God beyond my physical existence, I would also believe that this God would be pleased with my service to the whole of Humanity; and I believe that this God would recognize my service as service to God.

Humanity is finite; with a definitive beginning, and a potentially foreseeable end. Speaking as Humanity, if I were to question the existence of an infinite God, and if I were to seek alternatives, I might say that Nature is God; perhaps not immortal; perhaps not all-knowing; perhaps not all-caring; perhaps not merciful; perhaps not just; perhaps not all-powerful. But yet, I can see my active Humanitarian hope for goodness and for continued cooperative existence, inseparably entangled with the future of Nature.

Still speaking as Humanity, perhaps it would be more pleasing to the ear, and less adversarial, to say that the whole of Nature, past, present, and future, is my God to be served for the duration of my existence upon this Earth. If I were to believe in the existence of an infinite God beyond the natural boundaries of this existence, I would also believe that this God would be pleased with my service to the whole of Nature; and I believe that this God would recognize my service as service to God.

God is proposed to be infinite, and immutable. Speaking as this God, (presumptuous as it is), if I were to closely examine the workings of Humanity and Nature, I might question the odds of continued existence. And if I were to question the odds of the continued existence of Humanity and Nature, I might say that the individual is God; perhaps not immortal; perhaps not all-knowing; perhaps not all-caring; perhaps not merciful; perhaps not just; perhaps not all-powerful. But yet, I can see my hope for transcendence beyond the existential, manifest as ineffable intuitive perseverance within the individual; within Humanity; within Nature.

The question becomes, in the immediately preceding sentence, where exactly does individual intercession take over? Is God seeing His (or Her) hope? Or is God seeing individual hope? Or is an individual seeing personal hope? I believe the perseverance in the second part of the sentence indicates a greater likelihood of (active) individual hope, and I believe that the perspective is (mostly) irrelevant. To rely on God's hope for or faith in an individual, or in the whole of Humanity, (from where I sit) has not proven universally productive. I believe one may attribute ineffable intuition as one chooses, as long as it is followed by an active individual hope that contributes to universal progress and productivity.

I am mortal. Humanity is God.

Humanity is finite. Nature is God.

Nature is bounded. Transcendence is God,

Transcendence is intuitive. Intuition is individual.

God is individual. The Individual is God.

I am mortal...

I believe that individual fulfillment is an ongoing process, attainable only through individual effort, up to (and including) my last breath. With that said, I also believe that these efforts toward individual fulfillment are a critically necessary part of parallel efforts toward universal progress and productivity. And I believe that these two tracks---(Individual Fulfillment and Universal Fulfillment)---will most efficiently move us, (as individuals and as the whole of Humanity), forward. From where I sit, these two most massive and important aspirations should work together as a sincere, organized entanglement of individual efforts toward personal fulfillment that will additionally contribute to universal progress and productivity. Smaller scale efforts toward group, organizational, social, cultural, or communal fulfillment, while potentially productive, are also potentially distracting and divisive; (thus, they are "smaller scale" in terms of potential results). These smaller scale efforts, that may include groupthink and/or conformity, may also suppress individual creativity and thoughtfulness; and they may encourage some degree of tyrannical certainty. Coercive or legislative efforts to impose individual fulfillment, based on this smaller scale mindset, may result in magical, quiescent, fairy-web strands of individual fulfillment, which, when woven together, have the potential to create a lithe web of surprising tensile strength.

George Kateb, (William Nelson Cromwell Professor of Politics, Emeritus, Princeton University), in his book "Human Dignity" says, "Every one of us, even the best, is at various times a slob, a sadist, and a moron; at our worst, we have hard hearts and jelly-like minds." I believe these characteristics to be encouraged and empowered by efforts toward group, organizational, social, cultural, or communal fulfillment. Anything less than the tandem of individual fulfillment and universal fulfillment has the potential to, (and I believe given enough time, will) turn very ugly. It is difficult to avoid the lure of small scale fulfillment; (even keeping in mind that individual fulfillment is a critical aspect of large scale fulfillment). To meet this challenge I must remember that:

1. I am better than me;
2. As a representative member of Humanity, I am no more necessary and I am no less necessary than any other past, present, or future individual; and
3. As a representative member of any group smaller than the whole of Humanity, I am part of a hierarchy that almost certainly places me, (in word and or in deed), above some individual members, and below others.

Though some further analysis is necessary, the observations above, (for me), support and confirm the differentiation between large scale and smaller scale efforts toward fulfillment.

1. "I am better than me." I will never reach an ultimate pinnacle of achievement or fulfillment, but somewhere, within reach, there is a better me; and some days I see it; and other days I touch it; and on occasion I live it. In a sense, I am my own personal aristocracy in which, through force of will, I can elevate the better part of me to ruling status and bend the baser aspects in order to maintain a large scale mindset of personal progress and productivity. Though I believe it also occasionally necessary to allow the predominant pleasure-seeking base some comfort and enjoyment in order to avoid a resentful perception of oppression and, (given the degree and duration), the inevitable attempted coup. By managing and balancing this inner give and take, I am establishing a foundation of individual fulfillment from which I can build toward universal progress and productivity. In this building process though, I often find that I am tempted to detour, taking some intermediate steps within smaller groups. I believe this will only sidetrack and delay. If I feel unprepared to contribute to universal progress and productivity, I believe my better option will be to continue building on personal fulfillment, which  is an ongoing necessity regardless. I may be surprised to find that working toward individual fulfillment contributes to the universal, in and of itself. And it is in this stage of the process that I should again remind myself of the second observation above.


2. "As a representative member of Humanity, I am no more necessary and I am no less necessary than any other past, present, or future individual." No other individual will ever reach an ultimate pinnacle of achievement or fulfillment, but every other individual, with effort, can reach a better self. In a sense, together, this makes each individual a necessary part of something much greater than oneself. And, in a sense, this means that without the individual---(without me)---the whole of Humanity would not exist as we see it, and as we feel it, and as we live it, in this moment. Yet additionally, when individual existence (as we know it) stops, Humanity, (in a different incarnation) continues. So this means that each individual should make the most of this moment by building toward personal fulfillment in order to contribute to this wonder of Humanity. Yet in this moment, this individual is up, and that individual is down; you have elevated the better part of you, and I have allowed for some base pleasure; he has contributed to universal fulfillment, and she has detoured to doctrinaire quiescence; and in the next moment it has changed. To be equally necessary is to allow (equally and in the moment) for the imperfections inherent in individual humanness; and to do so without looking back to judge previous moments, or looking ahead to anticipate future good (or bad) intentions. It is difficult, (perhaps impossible?), to forego judgement and anticipation (especially in regards to past or possible future harm), but to the extent one is able to do so, it will create efficiencies by allowing one to circle back and continue reaching for a better self, and by allowing one to recognize the wanton waste inherent in any efforts that work to justify any perspective other than equal necessity in the moment.


3. "As a representative member of any group smaller than the whole of Humanity, I am part of a hierarchy that almost certainly places me, (in word and/or in deed), above some individual members, and below others." It is within a hierarchical group context where one most easily exhibits the characteristics of "a slob, a sadist, and a moron" with "hard hearts and jelly-like minds." It is in the context of the whole of Humanity where one is able to most easily assimilate and practice opposing characteristics including, empathy, altruism, thoughtfulness, and compassion. The sheer numbers of past, present, and future individuals gives a more realistic perspective on the relative importance of any one individual compared to the next. This perspective in turn, puts into perspective the futility of fighting for position within a hierarchy; efforts are better spent toward individual fulfillment. Yet some may argue that individual fulfillment is accomplished through a group, and I have acknowledged that group efforts can be productive. But the time that must be spent playing politics within the group makes the group a less authentic, shadowy, shimmery reflection of individual fulfillment; and an identifiable group entity has much more potential for divisiveness if and when efforts are made to build toward universal progress and productivity.

As an aristocracy within myself, I may be inclined toward insolence. As a very tiny part of an immense whole, I may be inclined toward apathy and indulgence. As a player within a group hierarchy, I may be inclined toward oblivious disregard. And with awareness and effort, I may still, in any given moment, be drawn toward these improprieties; but I am also likely to find occasional moments of productive balance.

I'm tossed into a vast expanse
Of hurt and hidden fears
I sing my song, yet still I dance
With hope, and hollow tears.

This week I am asking myself, "how can I live authentically---(i.e. consistently within my perception of reality)---in this world of delusional pretentiousness?" To be taken seriously, and/or to be accorded (sometimes) even a nominal amount of respect, and allowing for social functionality, I often feel compelled to pretend and to be less than truthful. I pretend to care, inordinately, about the trivial and the superficial; and I pretend to not care about waste and avoidable incompetency. Though aware of personal fears and human frailty, I am less than truthful with others in this regard, maintaining an outward illusion of calm and confidence. And when other's fear manifests as specious bravado, I am also less than truthful, often displaying a facade of agreeable understanding. Although, in a sense, to pretend and to be less than truthful are synonymous, in another sense, if I am able to differentiate, it is less likely that my make-believe, (recognized as make-believe), will alter my personal truth; but a consistent practice of lying to myself, (most specifically regarding personal fear), may convince me of a more comfortable, inauthentic truth.

But before I delve further into my ruminations on fear and pretentiousness, I want to clarify two definitions: 1) Hope, and 2) Delusional.

1. In the verse above, "Hope" is meant to differentiate by emphasizing the spuriousness and futility of passive hope, and by encouraging an active hope driven by considerable effort toward productive change.
2. The word "Delusional" apparently carries with it a stigma of mental illness. But in the context of this written thought, (and I believe of most of my previous written thought), it is simply meant to imply a functionally unrealistic perspective, typically based on an unprovable belief, that ignores fear and injustice, and refuses to utilize objective analysis and/or empathic listening. This past week I used this word to describe someone---(and I was speaking in general terms, as in "anyone")---who proclaims to "know with certainty" any unproven or unprovable belief; (ex. Donald Trump will straighten out and clean up all the mess created by previous administrations). Offense was taken; and in hindsight, "Delusional" may have been a poor choice of words, as it abruptly ended the conversation. Perhaps "thoughtless" would be a better choice to truthfully deliver the intended message without the "crazy" stigma. ...Or perhaps it is okay that offense was taken.

I stated above that to live authentically, I must live within my perception of reality. Yet to consistently live within my (serious, skeptical, passionate, contemplative) perception of reality, (from experience), would create animosity and/or purposeful avoidance. I believe that each one of us, to some extent, has a public persona and a private persona. I believe that in most, (if not all), cases one's private persona is more authentic. I believe as I gain Life experience, more and more frequently, my private persona is advancing on, invading, and accosting my public persona. I believe that to live more authentically, I must allow this gap to continue to narrow; no surrender, no retreat. Yet I also believe, though the gap may narrow, there will always be a gap---rightfully so.

This week, I have observed individual fear manifest across all facets of the Human Psyche, exerting influence on Bravado, Insecurity, Self Interest, Empathy, and Madness; and strikingly impacting individual thoughts, feelings, and actions. (Last week, I described this interactive dynamic in some detail.) The most intriguing aspect of these instances, (involving multiple unrelated circumstance), is that (while some individuals recognized and acknowledged fear, and others did not), in every case the fear and/or (separately) the reaction was only superficially examined. Those who acknowledged fear, attributed their fear to short-term, anomalous factors, and attributed their reactions to rationally commendable considerations. Those who could not see (or refused to acknowledge) their fear, simply believed their reactions to be rationally commendable considerations; even though it was obvious that serious thought was left on the bench. And, in both those who saw their fear and those who did not, their logic was superficially irrefutable, and their portrayal of reality was superficially incomplete.

After reading this last bit, I understand the animosity and purposeful avoidance.

Yet to know my self, I must know my fear. And from there I cannot help but to aspire toward also encouraging others to dig deeper so they may root out and recognize hidden fears that, nonetheless, impact their thoughts, feelings, and actions. By doing so for myself, 1) I am forced to reason with my fear(s), 2) I am able to (first) better understand and (then) temper my thoughts, feelings, and actions, and 3) I find myself closer to Truth, Wisdom, and (upper-case) Happiness. Though, additionally, by rooting out and facing these fears, 1) I may find myself further from (lower-case) happiness; 2) because I create complexity, I may find it more difficult to justify some thoughts, feelings, and actions; and 3) because I create depth, I may find myself (feeling as if I am) in over my head. Nonetheless...

I am afraid of discomfort.
I am afraid of disruption.
I am afraid of confrontation.
I am afraid of oppression.
I am afraid of pain.
I am afraid of you.
I am afraid of change.
I am afraid of empathy.
I am afraid of questions.
I am afraid of accountability.
I am afraid of being found out.
I am afraid of losing control.
I am afraid of truthfulness.
I am afraid of thoughtfulness.
I am afraid of justice.
I am afraid of the inexplicable.
I am afraid of Wisdom.
I am afraid of Truth.
I am afraid of death.
I am afraid of meaninglessness.
I am afraid of nothingness.

This is reality...