hopelesshappiness.com

Job Advertised:

We are looking for qualified candidates to fill the position of Contributing Humanitarian. This is an unpaid, volunteer position that (additionally) does not require personal monetary contributions. All applicants will be rated on a scale of 0 to 10 in each of the following three areas: 1) Performance Characteristics and Skill Set; 2) Work Ethic; and 3) Listening Skills. A maximum score of 30 is possible; though very unlikely.

1) Performance Characteristics and Skill Set: 10 = Completely Capable of Performing or (within a "given" reasonable period of time) Learning and Demonstrating All Specific Characteristics and Skills Required; (listed below). Consistently Maintains All Previously Established Maximum Levels of Performance.

2) Work Ethic: 10 = Understanding and Execution of Maximum Productivity by Utilizing and Constantly Improving Efficiencies. Always Active and Willing. Always Maintains Focus. Never Succumbs to Distractions. Never Creates Distractions.

(A Distraction is defined as the introduction of a new topic or task, of equal or less importance, before completion of the current topic or task.)

3) Listening Skills: 10 = Always Listens, with Empathy, for Understanding. Never Creates Distractions. Always Confirms Understanding.

Each applicant will be rated in each of the three areas above based on past performance, with emphasis placed on the most recent, measurable five-year period. Additionally, if an applicant is unable to show a solid history of consistent skill performance, based on the ratings above and the specific characteristics and skills listed below, said applicant, by sincerely committing to this effort, may still be considered for an internship.

Specific Characteristics and Skills Required:

• Truthfulness
• Uncertainty
• A High Degree of Active Skepticism
• An Active Care for Personal Health
• An Active Commitment to Lifelong Learning
• A Sense of Humor
• An Active Awareness of Residual Harm
• An Active Effort to Minimize Harm
• The Ability to Incorporate All Skills in order to Effectively Implement Creative Tension, and to Effectively Reconcile Disagreement.

 

Once an applicant, or an intern, meets all the requirements and scores a perfect 30, said applicant, or intern, will be granted the title of Senior Contributing Humanitarian. To date, we have been unable to promote anyone to this position.

Our organization, (which we consider to be made up of all of humanity), is a very flat organization whose hierarchy consists of part-time junior contributing humanitarians, interns, recruits, and potential recruits.

Please Apply Now!

How do I describe something that is nothing and everything folded into one singular microscopic infinity? It is a disturbing, (yet not altogether unpleasant), feeling---this inner anomaly that is concurrently growing and shrinking; taking wing and putting down roots; exploding and imploding; bursting forth in wondrous bloom and withering in shriveled dessication; fighting for survival and searching for a way out.

The thoughts above are remnants; somehow related to last week's consideration of thought beyond corporeal attachment. Though, (as previously stated), I believe my focus should be on my responsibilities to and within my current framework, I also believe that serious, rational consideration of unexplainable gaps and contradictions can aid in my responsibility to learning and growth, and (from there) can be applicable to this framework.

I believe that to overthink the unexplainable is dangerous, possibly leading one from a yearning for answers, to a liberal consideration of brainstormed possibilities, to a grasping conjecture, to a (at this point in this progression of thought) seemingly more reasonable leap of faith, to the bridging of the gap with a system organized in a manner that reassures others of a safe crossing, and finally to a desperate and divisive defense of one's belief, masquerading as truth. In this scenario, the leap (over the unexplainable gap), and the subsequent bureaucracy, is (mis)interpreted as solid groundwork supporting the belief.

I believe that to disregard the unexplainable is also undesirable, potentially leaving one mired in unimaginative certainties, perhaps staring longingly across the gap, afraid and unable to make a leap, thereby eliminating the perspective from the other side which can aid in filling the gap.

Those who leap and then bridge the gap with a gridwork of comfortable truth have expended effort, (sunk costs), that discourage crossing back for a more objective view.

Those who leap and then work at filling the gap, keep open the possibility of continuing to search for other gaps by, 1) once the gap is filled, crossing back or moving forward; or, 2) if unable to fill the gap, leaping back. In either case, one is not in (as much) danger of being trapped on the other side.

A sculpted, geometric, microscopic infinity simultaneously enfolding nothing and everything can only be felt in the gaps. I do not believe this anomaly, will ever, in its entirety, be found. But (again), I believe it can be felt, (if only momentarily), in the gaps. The only way into the gaps, is to expend effort filling the gaps. I have to get my hands dirty. I will never come close to this intertwined Truth of Nothing and Everything by crossing a bridge and gazing dreamily into the gap below.

A scenic outlook is exactly that.

I would like to think that thought is cohesive and coherent within or without corporeal attachment.

I would like to think that pure, unencumbered, unattached thought is Light; and Energy.

If this is so, the closest an individual entity, living in this world, can come to an inkling of an understanding of this concept of pure thought, is through dreams.

"Have you ever dreamed without the physical senses of sight or sound? Or touch, or smell, or taste? Have you ever dreamed as if the empirical corporeality of this world did not exist?"

"Oh the wonderful thinks it can think!"

But without a corporeal attachment, thought cannot act upon itself.

But within a corporeal attachment, thought has placed limitations upon itself.

Is thought somehow attracted to a physical entity? Like metal shavings to a magnet?

Or, is thought a byproduct of the senses? Like seeds sprouting from the Earth.

Once the bond of corporeal attachment is broken, does thought simply die?

Or, is it possible that once that bond of corporeal attachment is broken, thought lives on? Perhaps still cohesive and definable; or perhaps it becomes fragmented and pliable, ultimately blending (and/or dancing) with other thought to a level of overwhelming incoherence?

If thought can exist beneath or beyond the realm of consciousness, (as in dreams), then it feels logically intuitive---(i.e. a smaller leap)---that thought (as Energy) can exist beyond corporeal attachment.

This nonsensory thought has been represented in dreams by nonvisible constructs, (some interpreted as of geometric origin), against a backdrop of nonvisible Light and Dark.

This concept of nonsensory thought, is, perhaps, wishful thinking...

This concept of nonsensory thought, is, strangely, comforting...

This concept of nonsensory thought, must, (and will), remain, nonvisible...

This concept of nonvisible, nonsensory thought, creates, some, discomfort...

Discomfort with this concept of nonvisible, nonsensory thought, creates an urge, to explain...

Discomfort with this concept of nonvisible, nonsensory thought, is necessary, for, respectful, uncertainty...

The redundancy (of nonvisible, nonsensory, and nondefinable) is a necessary reminder.

Thought (as thought) can exist beyond corporeal attachment, and remain cohesive and coherent,  through the memory of others, and through the written word.

Memory is faulty.

Cohesive, coherent thought existing beyond corporeal attachment as written word, while more reliable than memory, remains a minimum of one (interpretive) step removed from the original thought, which in turn is limited by its origin within corporeal attachment.

It appears logical that cohesive, coherent thought must be definitively represented by tangible realities within the framework of corporeal attachment.

Therefore it feels logically intuitive that if thought (as Energy) does exist beyond corporeal attachment, it must emerge as fragmented and pliable, ultimately blending (and/or dancing) with other thought to a level of overwhelming incoherence.

...Perhaps to a frenzied level of overwhelming incoherence.

Unless, of course, there is another framework beyond corporeal attachment within which thought as Energy is able to remain cohesive and able to reestablish coherence.

But if this is the case, I have no conceivable way, within my current framework of corporeal attachment, to coherently represent this mythical framework.

Which brings us back to overwhelming incoherence.

Within my current framework of corporeal attachment, my responsibility is to my current framework of corporeal attachment. To expend effort toward making sense of overwhelming incoherence is nonsense.

If there is another framework beyond corporeal attachment, I cannot believe that it would require extreme ritual divisiveness for admittance.

If there is another framework beyond corporeal attachment, I believe active and universally productive thought within my current framework of corporeal attachment will ultimately determine admittance or rejection; (if indeed, there is a culling).

If there is not another framework beyond corporeal attachment, I believe active and universally productive thought within my current framework of corporeal attachment will ultimately determine if my thought (as thought) will exist beyond corporeal attachment, and remain cohesive and coherent.

To be effective, active and universally productive thought must be singularly defined by each individual.

I do not believe active and universally productive thought to include any efforts toward growth, perpetuation, acceleration or advancement of 1) ignorance, 2) injustice, 3) politics, 4) bureaucracy, 5) inefficiency, 6) consumerism, or 7) unshakable certainty in the face of reasonable, rational disagreement.

I believe active and universally productive thought must include some 1) truthfulness, 2) uncertainty, 3) skepticism, 4) creative tension, and 5) spirituality.

If we were to classify each individual as predominantly a) actively and productively thoughtful (as defined above), b) actively and selfishly (and/or purposefully) hurtful, c) passively selfish, or d) thoughtless, I believe a very large majority of individuals would fall into the last two groups.

I believe many individuals who are actively and selfishly / purposefully hurtful have become very adept at persuading a majority of individuals to be passively selfish and/or thoughtless, by misrepresenting passivity and apathy as comfortable truth. I believe this illusion that comfort is not hurtful, is often accomplished by first deluding oneself; and when put in those terms, I understand why it is an easy sell---even, (or perhaps especially), to oneself.

And because of this widespread delusion, I believe those who are actively and selfishly /purposefully hurtful have more sway over those who are passively selfish or thoughtless, than do those who are actively and productively thoughtful.

When given a choice, the majority choose easy.

I believe this can change.

I believe this must change.

Considerations outside of active and universally productive thought within my current framework of corporeal attachment, are an extraneous luxury; one that I cannot afford.

In any given moment, I must choose the reality of hard work, (within my framework of corporeal attachment), over the speciousness of comfortable truth.

There are many moments in which I make the wrong choice; and there are many moments in which I choose to work hard.

I began this week with a dream. A dream within which there was no sense of sight, or sound; nor touch, or taste, or smell. A dream that encouraged me to ponder thought beyond corporeal attachment. A dream that created a powerful longing for meaning beyond corporeal attachment. I followed the thread of this dream to the conclusion above that I must choose to work hard to fulfill my responsibility to my current framework of corporeal attachment. In many ways, this is sad.

I want to believe that thought is cohesive and coherent within or without corporeal attachment. And perhaps, on some level, I do believe. But I cannot act on overwhelming incoherence; I must act on that which is cohesive and coherent. And I refuse to invent fictions, or to believe myth and legend, for the sake of comfortable truth.

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

There are some weeks when I work so hard at thinking, and writing, and walking, and working, and living that when I see my reflection in passing it appears to be writhing in mock pain and yelling "Charlatan!" at an ear-splitting level, while staring into the center of my being with a malicious grin and a dismissive nod. It is late on Thursday night, and I am tired. Perhaps reality will feel somewhat less dubitable in the morning...

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

Friday morning: the sun came up and I am reminded of two lines from the song "Lua" by Conor Oberst.

"We might die from medication, but we sure killed all the pain."
"...what was normal in the evening, by the morning seems insane."

It is time to wake up.

This week, after the Carolina Panthers Super Bowl loss, Cam Newton said, "I've been on record to say I'm a sore loser. Who likes to lose? Show me a good loser and I'll show you a loser." My instinctive response is, "show me a sore loser and you still have a loser." So apparently he is choosing between "sore" and "good" because in either case, you are left with a loser. In the context of "losing", to choose "sore" over "good" (I believe) indicates a lack of consideration for others, in that the feelings of one individual, (no matter personal or public opinion), are no more and no less significant than the feelings of any other one individual; and there are many other individuals on the winning team, whose enjoyment of their victory is potentially lessened by Mr. Newton's crybaby antics. Who knows? His purpose may not be specifically to detract from their victory and bring the spotlight back on himself. He may not completely understand his motivation. He may just be a crybaby with no planned or known ulterior motive. Regardless, the question becomes, "Is Mr. Newton an individual who a) can not show consideration for others, b) believes he should not have to show consideration for others, or c) simply will not (i.e. refuses to) show consideration for others?"

These 3 gradations of a sore loser are important; and I will come back to them. But first I want to examine those in the media, (and others), who claim that Cam Newton's truthfulness is honorable and preferable to the alternative. Those who make this claim believe the alternative to truthfulness is not being truthful. I see the choices not as honesty vs. dishonesty, but as truthfulness vs. social civility in order to minimize harm. (I do not know anything about Cam Newton's personal life, so I am not in any way casting aspersions with this example), but if his wife or a girlfriend or a friend asks him, "How do I look in these jeans?" will Cam Newton choose to be truthful or socially civil? I am 100% in favor of truthfulness with oneself, and if he is a sore loser inside, he should actively recognize that and then determine if harm, (such as a lack of consideration for others), can come from that, and if so he should consider how to minimize that harm. Social civility is a viable option. To be consistently, overtly, and truthfully vocal, is selfish.

Some media outlets have also justified Mr. Newton's antics as okay by comparing the similarity of his quote to a Vince Lombardi quote. And yes; Vince Lombardi did make a similar comment. But Vince Lombardi also said:

"The spirit, the will to win, and the will to excel---these are the things that endure and these are the qualities that are so much more important than any of the events that occasion them."

And:

"You never win a game unless you beat the guy in front of you. The score on the board doesn't mean a thing. That's for the fans. You've got to win the war with the man in front of you. You've got to get your man."

And:

"Winning is not everything---but making the effort to win is."

And:

"Second place is meaningless. You can't always be first, but you have to believe you should have been---that you were never beaten---that time just ran out on you."

In context, and considering his entire body of work, I don't believe Vince Lombardi was advocating being a sore loser. He recognized that you cannot win every time and (I believe) he was advocating the will to win and, (with the fourth quote above), encouraging one to set their mind on winning, even when first place has slipped from their grasp. I believe this "winning mindset" will more likely translate into a public perception of a good loser as opposed to a sore loser. If Mr. Newton felt himself a winner regardless, (as Mr. Lombardi suggested), there would be no discussion of losing, period, and this would not be a story.

Now back to the progression of sore losing. I asked if Mr. Newton is an individual who a) can not show consideration for others, b) believes he should not have to show consideration for others, or c) will not (i.e. refuses to) show consideration for others? I believe this to be a progression of maturity and growth (in succession and respectively) from a) immaturity due to a lack of experience, to b) immaturity due to an inflated ego, to c) a stunting of growth due to delusional arrogance. In this last case, it may appear that there is little or no potential for the individual to outgrow their selfishness. I want to believe this is extreme and rare. In the case of Cam Newton, I believe his is a case of immaturity due to an inflated ego with a dash (or two or three) of inexperience, and I believe there is considerable potential for him to outgrow this affliction. In support of this potential, on one media outlet this week I saw a report that basketball bad-boy Isaiah Thomas now regrets similar "sore-loser" behavior from his past.

Bad behavior and lack of consideration is not exclusive to wealthy, young sports heroes. I am constantly discovering areas of inexperience in which my immaturity wants to surface, but I work very hard to consciously suppress the whiny excuses, temper tantrums, and hotheaded volatility that I want to use to defend my shortcomings. I am not always successful. I am constantly tripping over my ego, but I work very hard to consciously recognize the misstep before I verbally translate it into thoughtless potential for harm. I am not always successful. It is the nature of the beast to be incapable---(childlike inexperience)---of showing consideration for others, or to feel I should not have to---(ego)---show consideration for others. But I do not believe it to be human nature to create fictional constructs in my mind to convince myself of my superiority. I believe this delusional arrogance to be learned behavior. I would also like to believe that it is behavior that can be overwritten by an active recognition of one's responsibility to minimize harm and one's responsibility to seek reconciliation. Though I will never completely escape the dangers of inexperience and ego, by actively acknowledging the challenges they create, perhaps I will be able to vault over delusional arrogance and on occasion land in (or at least near) responsible maturity.

This week I asked myself, "If I could only choose one, what single, consistently-redundant experience or observation generates the greatest intensity of mind-numbing, jaw-dropping, heart-rending, gut-clenching anger?" My answer? "Most definitely injustice... no, ignorance; or maybe politics (defined as any struggle for power and control); or perhaps bureaucracy... no; it would have to be consumerism; or maybe inefficiency; no... it has to be unshakable certainty in the face of rational, reasonable disagreement... okay... I don't know. I need to dig deeper.

Each of these candidates bring outstanding attributes to the table. Many are interrelated in one way or another. For example bureaucracy and inefficiency are nearly synonymous from the bureaucracy end, but inefficiency can also stand alone. And I believe consumerism and unshakable certainty to be the manipulative, illicit progeny of politics. Additionally, injustice is often the outcome of ignorance, politics, or bureaucracy, while ignorance often appears to be a requirement preceding any one of the contestants. So if this last observation is accurate, it appears that the winner should be ignorance. So I suppose if I could only choose one, my answer would have to be ignorance.

But ignorance is like the elephant that can only be eaten one bite at a time. Yet to think of devouring even one of the six remaining elephants feels daunting and formidable as well. If the elephant matriarch is "ignorance" and if I were to follow the family tree, I believe politics and injustice would be included in the second generation. The third generation would give birth to fraternal twins bureaucracy and inefficiency, as well as consumerism, and unshakable certainty. We would also find many other baby elephants scattered throughout the herd, sharing traits and characteristics of Mom and Grandma and siblings and cousins. Unlike most elephants who limit the size of the herd, this herd continues to grow larger, trampling over everything in sight. I lack confidence that one bite at a time will slow them down, much at all. So what can we do?

Again, I need to dig deeper. So I ask myself, "How can I best react to intense anger brought on by one, (or more than one), rampaging elephant?" Like the earlier question on anger, I have a difficult time coming up with a single answer. The candidates here are uncertainty, truthfulness (not to be confused with unattainable Truth---truthfulness is sincere expression of thought), skepticism, creative tension (defined as nonviolent direct action leading to nonviolent confrontation), and spirituality. Like the previous answers on anger, these answers appear also to be interrelated. Uncertainty and skepticism appear to be nearly synonymous, but I believe uncertainty to reflect an internal questioning within oneself, and skepticism to be a more overt, active questioning of status quo or disagreeable circumstance. And I believe both (uncertainty and skepticism) can lead to creative tension which should then be utilized to lead to negotiation and growth. I believe spirituality to be a result of consistently practicing truthfulness, uncertainty, skepticism, and creative tension. Spirituality leads to a serious consideration of the intangible or unexplainable without inventing implausible explanations. Spirituality is not organized religion. I believe organized religion to be a fourth generation elephant. And, bringing us full circle, truthfulness appears to be a requirement preceding any constructive advancement of the other four entrants.

Elephants are afraid of mice.

A group of mice is called a mischief.

I believe truthfulness to be the first generation Matriarch of our mischief. The second generation includes fraternal twins uncertainty and skepticism; and the third generation would give birth to creative tension and spirituality. As with the herd of elephants, there is the potential for many other mice to share traits and charcteristics of Mom and Grandma and siblings and cousins. As with the herd of elephants, we must not limit the size of our mischief. The greater the number and frequency of mice turned loose at the feet of the elephants, the greater the chance our mischief will frighten them into retreat.

It is a good plan.

Think about it; carefully; beyond (and within) the play on words.

It is a good plan.