hopelesshappiness.com

A Question of Perspective:

Pain:
A screech and a crash and the steam-hiss of gears.
The ache and the anguish of lost-lonely fears.
Effluvious sludge in a runoff of years.
A Lifetime of learning; a Lifetime of tears.

Pleasure:
I shift when I can to more boisterous gears.
The carefree non-plan of 9 lives and 3 cheers.
Oblivious moments, ignoring the years.
Just living the life as my life disappears.

Power:
The confident roar of prevailing high gears.
My goal, to control the chief puppeteers.
A certainty sown in the youth of my years.
A Lifetime discerning where best to hide fears.

Poetry:
A swaying sensation of jazzy-smooth gears.
A sacred creation connecting the spheres.
With rhythm and grace I will dance through my years.
A Life of compassion; a Life full of tears.

Pretense:
The gnashing of teeth; the grinding of gears.
The mind-numbing weight of self-conscious fears.
Convinced of my wisdom beyond my few years.
I gush and I spout and I talk off some ears.

Quiescence:
I'm playing it safe by not switching gears.
No worries, no questions, and no new frontiers.
Complacently passing the days and the years.
A Lifetime of yearning for meaningful tears.

Passion:
A laugh and a smile to lubricate gears.
The warmth of a friend when doubt leads to fears.
Harmonious fire that burns through the years.
A Lifetime of questions; a Lifetime of tears.

Ponder and Quarrel:
It is a question of perspective. And I really should allow these perspectives to stand alone and speak for themselves. But with the hubris inherent to and necessary for pretense, I feel compelled to pursue further analysis and commentary; (though I can argue that this pretense is in actuality passion, since I have no reason to believe that my weekly written thought will ever be anything but that).

These perspectives quite clearly overlap, but I believe at any given period (and/or in any given compartment) in one's Life there will be one or two that predominate. For example, in this past decade, I have been shot-put between pain, poetry, and passion, with occasional (probably more frequent than I want to remember) forays into pretense. Passion pulls me from pain, but I have found that runaway passion may manifest as discordant anger. In poetry I find some energizing peace. Poetry is inquisitive spirituality without religion. The effort toward poetry must be conscious and intentional, and the ever-evolving result of poetry should be esoterically transcendental and ineffable.

I would argue that a Lifetime of pain and passion and poetry is preferable to a preponderance of other perspective combinations or any one single perspective. Perhaps I make this claim because I feel it is this combination of perspectives that has guided me as an individual these last few years. Or perhaps I make this claim based on perceived learning and growth in this past decade. There are many days I work very hard at increasing levels of poetry and passion to numb the pain, while at the same time not succumbing to the siren songs of quiescence and/or pretense. It has been many years since I have experienced a perspective of power at levels previously perceived; though I see now that much of what I felt then was an illusion.

Unlike poetry (which one must seek consciously and intentionally) pain is often thrust upon us. Some may argue this, and (to some extent) rightfully so; but those that do argue against the impact of circumstance are often those who are comparatively pain-free. Circumstance can influence all perspectives, but the individual still must take ultimate responsibility by pushing back into unfortunate circumstance, and by seeking other perspectives.

I must also argue that of all the perspectives, quiescence should be the least desirable as it limits potential for learning and growth moreso than any other - (including pleasure from which, by being active, one may learn from mistakes and/or by osmosis). Yet quiescence is the easiest and (too) often the most comfortable. To maintain the passive comfort of "no worries, no questions, and no new frontiers" the perspective of quiescence leaves a void; a sense of loss seldom acknowledged, but nonetheless felt. This "yearning for meaningful tears" inherent in quiescence becomes manifest in many different ways including unquestioning conformity to a cause or belief, political correctness, overstated outrage, drama, crocodile tears, an unnatural desire for and attachment to 'stuff', narcissism, an ignorance of or apathy for visible reality, an inability to see past or escape bureaucracy and other political inventions, and the inability to express oneself beyond simple and/or predictable platitudes. Because one mired in quiescence feels a need for meaning and seeks to fill that need they will learn to fabricate a depth of meaning from an otherwise superficial source; a source often presented as meaningful by another individual or group operating from a perspective of power or pretense.

I believe every individual to have some natural inclination to each perspective presented. I believe some natural inclinations to be stronger than others, varying in degree according to the individual. I believe circumstance can push one toward or away from a perspective. And I believe that by being aware of this question of perspective one can consciously choose to work at a Lifetime to their liking.

Reconciliation - 'The process of making consistent or compatible.'

We spend every thinking moment of every day seeking reconciliation. We very much want Life to make sense. When something does not make sense we can either a) forget it; b) hide it; c) respect it; or d) be afraid. All but the last of these is an attempt at reconciliation. To be afraid most often forces one to fall back on a, b, or c. To be afraid for an extended period (I believe) can lead one to (and perhaps over) the brink of truth and/or madness. Is there a connection between truth and madness? If so, is it more likely that truth leads to madness? Or is it more likely that madness leads to truth? If Friedrich Nietzsche were here, I would ask him. In 1865, more than 20 years before his ultimate mental breakdown, Nietzsche said,

"Hence the ways of men part: if you wish to strive for peace of soul and pleasure, then believe; if you wish to be a devotee of truth, then inquire."

To inquire creates the possibility of an irreconcilable paradox; and this in turn creates the strong likelihood of either unacknowledged fear or acknowledged fear. When faced with the dilemma of a seemingly irreconcilable paradox: a) those who hold a strong opposing belief typically do not recognize or acknowledge their fear, they simply ignore then immediately forget any validity within an opposing perspective and continue to believe what they have been told to believe; b) those who consistently maintain a majority or a conformist belief may or may not acknowledge their short-lived fear, but regardless, immediately cram any oppositional validity into a personal pandora's box, thus hiding it from view and enabling a comfortable ignorance; and finally c) those who question a truth recognize, acknowledge, and respect their fear of the unknown, actively seeking reconciliation by virtue of learning and growth that leads to new knowledge, (which in turn should create another paradox, beginning the cycle again).

This week I have faced irreconcilable paradox. Every week I consciously consider and work at exoteric goodness. Every week I fall short in some way. But this week, (more than usual), I have seen and felt my failings with a visceral intimacy beyond discomfort. I have tried to put this off to circumstance, but can circumstance actually create iniquity? Or does circumstance simply drag my imperfections to center stage, forcing a reconciliation?

There comes a dizzying point in this constant cycle of seeking reconciliation when the learning and the fear begin to overlap.

There comes a dizzying point in this constant cycle of seeking reconciliation when one is unable to differentiate between a dog playfully chasing its tail and a snake destructively devouring its tail.

There comes a dizzying point in this constant cycle of seeking reconciliation when one is encouraged to forget or hide, or else feel the risk of facing the madness of truth; (or the truth of madness).

This week I have come to this dizzying point.

Typically, as we approach this dizzying point or when we come to this dizzying point many (I believe most) of us choose to forget or hide, which allows an escape from the fear and an excuse or reason to forego the learning.

Some have a very low tolerance for vertigo and come to this dizzying point much more quickly than others.

I believe that with practice, when we come to this dizzying point, most of us can become more tolerant and perhaps even learn to enjoy the ride.

In the company of others, (who are like-minded in their insistence on respectful skepticism and argument, and who can mitigate the dangers in approaching the brink), it can be a wildly exhilarating ride.

Alone it can be a difficult, contentious, painful, and potentially dangerous ride.

If I can avoid danger, will I learn more alone from the difficulty, contention, and pain? Or will I learn more through the safer exhilaration and interdependent synergy of mutually respectful argument?

If I can avoid the danger...
...of truth.

It is in our nature to complicate truth, making it more dangerous. But to simplify truth one must first know it, and in the context of an ultimate truth I don't believe this to be possible. If it were possible to see the simplicity of an ultimate final truth I believe the current danger inherent in seeking truth would be transformed into a demanding decisiveness. And therein lies the even greater danger of certainty.

We spend every thinking moment of every day seeking reconciliation. The fact that we do this vividly illustrates the elusiveness of truth.

To seek reconciliation is to seek truth...

To seek truth is inherently dangerous...

To face that danger is (for me) preferable to oblivious comfort...

We should seek truth...

We should be afraid of truth...

Regardless...

It really is all about me. Not at all in an other-oriented sense in that I expect the world to revolve around me and/or I believe that everyone I come in contact with should always (first and foremost) focus on me. But most definitely in the self-oriented sense where I will 'Never' escape my personal sense of me, and I will 'Always' (first and foremost) see all things through this filter I call 'Me'. In other words, it is all about me from my perspective because I am me; and from another's perspective they are the only 'me' that they know, so it is still 'all about me' - only, it is them - not me. Like many (alleged) insights I look at this and see it as a 'Duh' moment, as it now appears rather obvious. But it has led me to consciously remember the following:

1. by nature, I am selfish;
2. there are times I don't like myself, so at times it is sad that I can never escape me;
3. it actually, really, for sure (I need this reassurance) does not matter as much as I often think it does, what others think of me;
4. ultimately I choose for myself and I act for myself,  utilizing (or not) an ethical decision-making process;
5. after choosing and acting ethically (or not) for myself, I either a) regard others with courtesy, respect, compassion, and empathy, and I help where possible, asked, and/or needed; or I b) regard others with apathy, disdain, contempt, and/or condescension, and I choose to not help or I pretend to help (or think I am helping) with criticism, judgement, and/or certainty; or I c) mix and match elements of 'A and B' as I see fit to suit my purposes; and
6. I consciously and actively recognize (or not) that when I am interacting with another and they with me, from their perspective I am (personally) #5 on their list of considerations, just as they are #5 on my list.

Or put more mellifluously -  in each and every thought process I have that is related to human interaction (stranger, acquaintance, friend, or loved one) my intent is to first take charge so I may navigate the hazardous straits of 'Woe is Me' and the rocky shores of 'What will others think?' to reach the choppy waters of ethically choosing a navigable course with decent odds of safe passage to the deeper waters of a meaningful relationship. Yet when I choose well and reach these deep waters, stormy seas will on occasion cause a fear of capsizing, thus (from my perspective) suggesting that I chart a course toward calmer, shallow waters and perhaps a sunny, comfortable beach. And once on that sunny, comfortable beach, I might want to stay, joining those who (unethically) have also chosen the safe shallows of comfort over the depths of adversity.

I believe this extension of thought from my original insight (though still obvious) has added some logic and import to this consideration of human interaction from a perspective of 'Me'. And that is where I began this week - selfishly searching for an understanding of why others so frequently choose to (it appears to me) ignore serious thought and discussion that will lead to ethical decision-making which in turn will minimize harm and maximize good. I am determined and (at times) severe when it comes to serious thought and communal/global progress, yet everywhere I look (again, it appears to me) so many of us are so wrapped up in busyness, and safety, and comfort that we cannot see beyond our own, personal shoreline. ...So based on this thought instead of reproachfully justifying my search as I have done above, perhaps I should admit that I really began this week wondering why (it appears to me) no one will take me seriously. I know - The Straits of 'Woe is Me' are narrow and (in places) very shallow and I have been stuck; but this week's thoughts have (for the moment) pushed me off my sandbar. I cannot save the world, (especially since the world won't listen); but by actively acknowledging the gap from #1 (my perspective) to #5 (the perspective of another), I believe I can save me.

I lifted two quotes from two different creative venues this week that have relevance and that I would like to explore further. The first comes from John Goodman as a Tulane Professor discussing literature with his class in the HBO series 'Treme'. The second is from the fictional work 'World Gone By' written by Dennis Lehane.

"Don't think in terms of a beginning and an end, because unlike some plot-driven entertainments, there is no closure in real life; not really."

"He waited for others to come. He hoped they would. He hoped there was more to this than a dark night, an empty beach, and waves that never quite reached the shore."

Stories do often lead us to believe in closure; the hero gets the girl (or guy), the villain is vanquished, and there is an implied happily ever after. But something has to happen next. The characters (usually) do not simply vanish. Perhaps the happy couple will settle into a small house and begin a life of five or six day work weeks, mowing the lawn, taking out the trash, hunting and foraging at the grocery, paying bills, visiting with extended family, and with some luck they may occasionally enjoy friends, children, grandchildren, Scrabble, books, movies, and maybe even extended family And what about the vanquished villain? Odds are they have moved on to a new story in which they are hero, and they have settled in a small house, began a life of five or six day work weeks... Remember that these are stories. Reality consists of many different norms (ex. Homelessness) that still follow a routine. Regardless of circumstance, when the very large majority of us resolve one conflict we continue to routinely put one foot in front of the other, so we may move on to the next conflict.

Closure requires a final resolution of conflict, yet resolution begets more conflict. There is no 'final' resolution. We may believe that we gain closure through attachment with another individual or with a group, but that simply creates opportunity for conflict with an out-group. Conflict (even individual, inner conflict) always involves others and/or is influenced by others. Even "a dark night, an empty beach, and waves that never quite reach the shore" create a yearning for human interaction. In death many hope for and believe in an afterlife of human interaction; but regardless of belief, in death, one still has influence in life. So even this apparent finality does not bring closure.

The sadness of solitude comes from a longing for companionship. I believe this longing for companionship to be in each of us. I believe as long as we need companionship, closure is not possible; though we still search. For some this longing for companionship may be a palpable, (almost) physical ache. For others it may manifest as a simple desire to wander busy streets or visit crowded shops or restaurants. Regardless of how we fulfill this desire, to do so one must first negotiate with their personal sense of me. This look at closure and companionship has brought me right back to my original insight - it really is all about me.

Only...

Now I see...

I see that you are also me...
...and she is me.
...and he is me.
...and they are me.

So if, from some perspective, we are all me, who are they?

By adding logic and import to this consideration of human interaction from a perspective of me, and by debunking closure and validating companionship, I now see that a meaningful relationship can begin with a shared sense of me thus narrowing the gap even further between my perspective and the perspective of another me.

I realize (some may say) that this borders on the mystical; but if so it is a rational mysticism.

I also know that the likelihood of a very large collection of multiple individuals sharing this consciousness of 'Me' in a way that can significantly aid in minimizing global harm and maximizing a global good is (at this point in our history) untenable to an extent that many (perhaps most) would question the sanity of even expending this effort.

My response: I believe evidence shows that through more widespread shared empathy and compassion we have already made progress in this very direction.

Earlier in this written thought (and with tongue in cheek) I complained about the world not listening to me, and I (seriously) acknowledged that I cannot save the world. I followed this with the claim that 'by actively acknowledging this gap between my perspective and the perspective of another, I believe I can save me.' And now that I have (in my mind, for what that's worth) logically expanded 'Me' to include all individuals with a 'sense of me' I can believe that by saving me I am also saving the world; (Delusional? or Actively Hopeful?). And conversely, by not making this effort to save me by giving serious thought to global progress in the context of a universal me, I am giving up on the world; writing it off as a loss; sitting on the status quo; passively following those who are loud and certain; and on; and on; and on.

I believe I can save me...

Oscar Wilde said, "As long as war is regarded as wicked, it will always have its fascination. When it is looked upon as vulgar, it will cease to be popular."

I believe we could apply this same observation to politics; (where politics is defined as 'any effort toward or struggle for power and control').

In this sense, War is a subset of Politics.

In this sense...

Wickedness is beside me.
Vulgarity is beneath me.

Wickedness frolics.
Vulgarity oozes.

Wickedness excuses my humanity.
Vulgarity degrades my humanity.

Wickedness is refined vulgarity.
Vulgarity is impoverished wickedness.

As the line is stretched thinner, I can see that...

To be wicked is to be vulgar.

A case could be made that when the dots are connected, politics is necessary to maintain order. This case is typically made by those individuals most drawn to this struggle for power and control. Those most drawn to politics frequently quarrel. Thomas Hobbes' three principal causes of quarrel are 1) Competition for gain; 2) Diffidence or constraint for safety; and 3) Glory or honor for reputation and credibility.

If we define gain in terms of power and control, then...

Competition for individual gain at the harmful expense of others is vulgar;

And...

Competition for communal gain that lacks ethical consideration and harms others is uncivilized.

If we redefine gain in terms of individual exoteric goodness (i.e. gifted goodness left in one's wake) and global progress, then...

Competition becomes a struggle for logic and reason that ethically debates merit;

And...

The quarrel becomes mutually honorable.

I believe order can be maintained by individually refocusing on exoteric goodness and universal compassion, and by recognizing the vulgarity of quarrelsome politics.

What is literacy? Is it merely the ability to read and write? Should we add numeracy as a third fundamental skill? Do we extend the definition to a functional literacy, requiring the ability to function in and contribute to one's specific time and place? What about other specific and necessary (more specialized) skill sets such as computer literacy, or the broader-based technological literacy? And at what point do one's expectations include lifelong literacy, requiring the adaptability, desire, and volitional wherewithal necessary to actively work at comprehensive learning and growth throughout one's Life? If one reaches this point is it then reasonable to expect an effort toward analytical literacy, requiring skeptical rationality, active uncertainty, the ability to (somehow) argue both ends and all points along a spectrum (including those points that intersect with other spectrums), and the ability to come to an ethical decision?

Based on this progression of literacy, each individual one of us is (to some degree) illiterate within each component of literacy. In varying ways and in varying circumstance I am fundamentally illiterate, functionally illiterate, specifically illiterate, life-longingly illiterate, and analytically illiterate. Though I am human, I should still work each day at increasing my rate of personal literacy along all fronts, and I should not use my humanity as a reason for any degree of illiteracy. To be satisfied upon reaching a certain level of literacy (for me) is to shrivel up and die.

Just as each individual one of us is to some degree illiterate within each component of literacy, each individual one of us is also to some degree literate within each component of literacy. Literacy must be defined in terms of illiteracy; and literacy should be defined according to one's individual circumstance and capabilities. Literacy is a moving target. However, if I am capable, and circumstance allows, yet I choose to be satisfied, (by choosing not to pursue a higher rate of literacy on any front) I would label myself as illiterate. I cannot accuse another individual of being illiterate. Based on observation I can suspect illiteracy in others (and I too often do), but because I could never truly understand another individual's specific circumstance and capabilities, my thoughts would remain unprovable suspicions. This means that one's literacy can only be defined by one's self; otherwise it becomes a value judgement. In terms of literacy I believe value judgements and suspicions to be counterproductive.

The printing press was invented in 1452, creating an upward trend in book printing, which in turn encouraged wider spread literacy (according to the fundamental definition). Over the next few centuries as literacy continued to increase and progress, statistics show that humanitarianism also increased.  By raising awareness of other perspectives and creating the beginnings of an affinity for those outside of our immediate circle, as a global community we became more compassionate. As Stephen Pinker states in his book 'The Better Angels of our Nature', "The pokey little world of village and clan, accessible through the five senses and informed by a single content provider, the church, gave way to a phantasmagoria of people, places, cultures, and ideas." One of these ideas that came along in the same era as the printing press was the blasphemous impiety that the sun did not revolve around the earth. It is interesting that these two discoveries (1. The sun does not revolve around the earth, and 2. The world does not revolve around me), at approximately the same time, led respectively to an opening of minds and an opening of hearts. Granted, each opening was small in this beginning, but each has grown progressively larger as the decades and centuries have passed; and I believe this trend of growing knowledge and compassion will continue into future generations.

I believe recent decades have brought us to this point in the evolution and understanding of literacy where we must allow the individual to choose his or her personal level of fundamental literacy, functional literacy, specialized literacy, lifelong literacy, and analytical literacy.

I believe community and global efforts to increase rates of fundamental literacy, functional literacy, and many areas of specialized literacy are worthwhile and (in some, perhaps most, circumstance) necessary.

I believe commitment and effort toward lifelong literacy and/or analytical literacy are choices that must be left to each individual.

I believe each step (within a component, or from one to the next) adds complexity and depth.

I believe levels of literacy within each component will continue to rise.

I believe it to be too easy and comfortable to focus on and/or become stuck in the certainty of fundamental literacy, functional literacy, and/or a degree of specialized literacy.

I believe it to require considerable effort to actively commit to lifelong literacy because much of our additional adult learning comes as a byproduct of functional and/or specialized literacy, and this (potentially arbitrary, casual, or capricious) learning allows and encourages one to become comfortable and satisfied within these narrower parameters, thus avoiding a sincere commitment to lifelong literacy.

I believe it to require considerable effort to break free of our fundamental, functional, specialized cocoons.

I believe personal circumstance and capability do work to inhibit some effort toward lifelong literacy, but I do not believe this should become an excuse.

I believe that due to circumstance more than capability, many individuals are unable to overcome various factors (including fear, indoctrination, and an easy or easier comfort) in order to actively pursue analytical literacy.

I believe analytical literacy to be (by far) the most malnourished of all components of literacy.

I believe feeding and exercising analytical literacy is critical to our survival.

I believe that globally, composite levels of literacy will continue to rise.