hopelesshappiness.com

"This is a story about magic and where it goes and perhaps more importantly where it comes from and why, although it doesn't pretend to answer all or any of these questions.

It may, however, help to explain why Gandalf never got married and why Merlin was a man. Because this is also a story about sex, although probably not in the athletic, tumbling, count-the-legs-and-divide-by-two sense unless the characters get totally beyond the author's control. They might.

However, it is primarily a story about a world. Here it comes now. Watch closely, the special effects are quite expensive."

The paragraphs above are the opening words from Terry Pratchett's 1987 novel "Equal Rites." I have been meaning to---(good intentions, and all that)---read Terry Pratchett for some time now, but at the moment of this specific written thought, the only Terry Pratchett words I have read are those words from the passage above. It is a great beginning. And it feels like a springboard into some form of personal exploration. I have no clue where it will take me, but I am at the end of the board, the juices are flowing, and I can feel the springiness... Here I go! Look out!

Shall I jump feet-first into the middle of the sexual gymnastics math problem and consider the complications created by adding a one-legged man into the equation? Or, worse yet, how would we solve for x if we added a one legged man and a one-legged woman? Or should I first fly by and consider the origins and destinations of magic, and perhaps take a potshot at a wizard or two? Eventually, I most definitely (and most defiantly) want to explore out of control, and perhaps even defend, condone, and absolve a certain amount of impetuous recklessness. Or perhaps I need to first justify the extravagance and expense of the special effects which from where I sit appear way overdone but if I fly higher to gain a big picture worldview perhaps the distant fuzziness will aid in clarifying the necessity of such foolhardy, madcap luxury. Perhaps... Perhaps... Perhaps...

Blurred vision, lack of detail, and lack of definition, all to aid in clarity. This is where I shall begin. It sounds oxymoronic;---(is that a word?)---perhaps due to the high altitude and lack of oxygen necessary for one to convince oneself of their all-seeing, all-knowing powers of omniscience. (I know; redundant, but I must ensure I reach as many oxygen-starved brains as possible.) This omniscience---(the all-seeing, all-knowing part)---is an origin of some magic, and some of those who pull it off with consistency and aplomb are wizards. Some of the most powerful wizards can see into the future, (in our society) often in four-year increments. There are many wizards though who operate on cycles of varying times based on the ebb and flow of their powers. Some wizards are wizards-for-life thanks to the power being handed down from parents to children. And then there are those flash-in-the-pan wizards who create a bedazzling burst of loud, powerful, extravagant, expensive magic and then quickly disappear with their take, perhaps to reappear (or not) at a later time with more magic, for more profit. I believe all wizards to be of the "flash-in-the-pan" variety. Even a wizard-for-life is a flash-in-the-pan as seen by the eye-of-all-that-has-ever-existed. And as I explore, I recognize that perhaps this expanse of past-and-future forever-and-everness, that we fondly call time, is perhaps the greatest magic trick of... well... of all time. Yet, from where I sit, this most powerful of all magics is not wizard-work, but the simple day-to-day creations of hard-working, uncertain, skeptical individuals unable to see beyond the next question; (much less, four years into the future). Ain't that a kick in the head? Wizards are charlatans, and any individual who chooses to, can perform the greatest magic there is.

And where does all this magic go? I believe wizard-work magically disappears (often after a profit of some sort), and I believe (daily, sincere, productive) hard work magically travels to the future. Too succinct? Tough. It is how I see it.

So now I believe I will explore out of control. If you read the opening Pratchett quote carefully, you understand that fictional characters may escape the author's control, and as fictional characters they are essentially imaginative creations of the mind, or thoughts, thus doing minimal harm unless some crazy in the world translates these thoughts into actions, at which point I would argue that not only can you not censor thoughts, but also as a crazy the crazy was likely having their own thoughts that were possibly even more dangerous and out of control than the author's out of control thoughts, therefore the author's out of control thoughts may have served as a safer outlet for crazy than the original unfocused crazy thoughts of the actual crazy, leading me to also believe that I should allow my personal thoughts to rove randomly and rampantly in wild bands of hooligan thoughts through the dark midnights of my mind not only because this is more truthful and I believe otherwise would be delusional, but also because by doing so I may prevent (though I don't believe, for me, it is possible---but you never know) a DefCon 4 or 5 buildup of crazy; and besides I can no more control my thoughts than I can my dreams and nightmares, (though there are times when I can control my dreams, which is quite empowering), so why not let them ping crazily through my head to see which synapses light up and which go dark, and to help me make some sense of my search for whatever-it-is-I'm-searching-for. Out of control thoughts are great! Out of control actions and behaviors must be thought through carefully, which I guess actually makes them (at least somewhat) controlled. I believe potential for out of control actions and behaviors resides only in the moment, without thought, because it requires thought to define the last moment or to plan the next moment, so an event such as the sexual gymnastics previously described must consist of multiple thoughtless moments strung together, but since in this case these are merely thoughts posing as fictional characters, if I were to insert myself---(poor choice of words)---into such a circumstance, I will have done so thoughtfully, and having thought about it I believe I will not find myself in such a circumstance, but if I do, I believe I would prefer a vantage point on high as a lookout for the one-legged man and/or the one-legged woman who could skew the results. After all, we can't have skewed results.

And that, my Friends, is the point that ties it all together. We must somehow figure out how to take a worldview that excludes skewed results; which from where I sit means, when I consider my worldview, I must exclude wizard-thought and wizard-work, and I must encourage out of control thoughts because of their potential to connect with and expedite productive hard-work, and I must believe in the magic of time travel, and I must fly low enough so I am able to account for the one-legged peoples of this world.

It was a very springy board. Thank you Pratchett!

I have 3 topics heavily impacting my thought this week; each prompted by 3 completely unrelated sets of circumstance:

1. Suffering;
2. Disappointment; and
3. Exploitation.

So far in this Life, I have often found the emotional suffering of seeing someone close to me suffer, to be far more intense than any physical suffering experienced myself. Many would agree that the feelings of helplessness associated with this secondary suffering are such that you would willingly trade places. But would this be a loving sacrifice? Or would it be a gesture of self-aggrandizing exaltation? To determine where, along this spectrum, one's intentions lie would require an objective determination of a) sincerity, b) individual perceived differences in the intensity of respective suffering as circumstance is reversed, and perhaps c) the magnitude of the sacrifice as compared to the magnitude of the resultant increase in power; (because with martyrdom does come a certain amount of power). Though this is a thought experiment, and I realize that one cannot, in most instances, actually, physically or emotionally, trade places, I do remember how a recent, personal hospital stay of my own upset my daughter, so perhaps I should give some thought to the possibility that my desire to trade places with her this week is selfish. Perhaps her feelings of helplessness were equally as (or more) intense three months ago than what I feel this week. Perhaps I need to be strong for her, from here.

Last week I was asked by a friend to read her recently-finished, first-draft novel she had written as part of her Master's Program. I was flattered to be asked. She made me promise truthfulness. And being truthful, it was an enjoyable read. And also being truthful, I foresee some disappointment. I have experienced emotional attachment with personal creative effort, and I have experienced disappointment when a valued opinion of another is at odds with my own opinion that has perhaps been made murky by cross-eyed infatuation. In this case, it truthfully was an enjoyable read, but there are some gaps and some distractions. I believe that to help, I should truthfully point out the gaps and distractions without filling or correction. I have some filler suggestions, but it is her story and must remain so. I must refrain from filling gaps. And as for corrections, some general housekeeping, (from a copyedit perspective), I believe would be appropriate, but the detail (in this context of a Master's Program) should probably be left to her. I cannot say with any degree of certainty what would be best for her story, but since asked, I can be, and I will be, truthful about the gaps and distractions.

There are many days I feel as if I am a mere conduit for others; a contrivance to assist another to move from point A to point B; a means to an end. Of late, in one particular setting/circumstance, it has become rare to feel as if I am respected; autonomous; an end unto itself. As I consider the flow reversed though, I also see that in many of my transactions with others, I too am often inclined to utilize another as a stepping stone. So if this is a common practice, at what point does one cross the line from a mutually agreed-upon transaction to exploitation. I have some thoughts. Nearly two years ago, (in the post "Devaluing Happiness"), I differentiated between market transactions and their related currencies, and human transactions and their related currencies. I believe any market transaction utilizing market currencies (including money, power, influence, and/or a claim for the greater good), but posing as a human transaction is an attempt at exploitation. I believe when the quantity or frequency or depth of market currencies noticeably outweigh the layers of human currencies (including trust, compassion, understanding, responsibility, respect, goodwill, emotional interaction, and productive two-way communication), yet an individual or organization claims a human transaction, the line has been crossed. Of late, in one particular setting/circumstance, this pretentious falsity of presenting a market transaction as a human transaction has crossed the line into exploitation.

It is an interesting convergence of thought. To share that one is in the midst of suffering, disappointment, and exploitation would very possibly elicit empathy and/or sympathy from some, yet to look closely it is likely that each one of us is experiencing some degree of each in some specific circumstance in any given week; perhaps not as sharply defined as this week, but nonetheless... And yes, at this point in my written thought, I could, (and I guess I will), repeat oft-stated beliefs that to examine and even embrace adversity will lead to learning and growth, whereas to ignore or deny the consistent existence of adversity will lead to a delusional, (though possibly comfortable), stagnation and ignorance.

So...

In addition to being a reminder, this week's convergence of thought has also led me to recognize, (or at least consider the possibility), that:

1. I am more likely to aid another in the alleviation of their suffering by taking ownership of and remaining strong in my own suffering; and also by offering meaningful words of comfort, and (perhaps most importantly) thoughtful acts of service.
2. Each lifetime, each week, each day, and each moment will contain gaps and distractions, and (when asked) I should truthfully assist another in identifying those gaps and distractions; but I should not become a co-author.
3. When I am told that a human transaction minus human currencies plus market currencies remains equal to a human transaction, I should double check the math; and if I determine that the market currencies are greater than the human currencies, I should correct the math and share my equation. But if it is a circumstance not conducive to sharing or if I am unable to encourage subtraction of market currencies and/or addition of human currencies on the other side, I should recognize the exploitation and work toward a more equitable equation by adding market currencies and/or subtracting human currencies on my side. From experience, I have found that (unfortunately), as I add market currency and/or subtract human currency, eventually the equation will come to a sum of zero.

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

I have come to the end of this week. My daughter is improving, I am delivering (and feeling some personal backlash of) disappointment on Tuesday, and I will do my damnedest to avoid a zero sum equation. Overall, it has been a productive week.