hopelesshappiness.com

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.

Following are some questions based on personal interactions observed this week:

Are you a two-seat counter person covering surrounding bar stools with personal belongings to claim your space? Do you have a consistent ownership policy in all settings? Or does it vary by venue? (i.e. lunch counter, local tavern, generic restaurant bar, $5-a-cup coffeehouse...) This week I observed a very interesting interplay of buffer zones and territoriality in a coffeehouse.

When walking in public, do you make eye contact with strangers? Or do you avoid eye contact? And does this depend on the setting? (i.e. downtown, public park, retail, grocery, fast-food joint, high-end restaurant...) This week I observed more eye contact indoors than outdoors.

If you make eye contact, and eye contact is returned, do you smile? Do you nod? Do you speak? This week I observed more smiles from women, more nods from men, more verbal acknowledgement from couples, and less acknowledgement of any kind from those in groups of three or more. There were exceptions.

When in a public stranger setting, do you intuitively feel an alliance with some and not with others? Do you initiate any contact with one group and/or shun another group? If so, which group(s) do you feel compelled to seek out and which do you avoid? This week I observed that I am inimically judgmental.

Do you choose your public stranger settings based on the likelihood of who you may encounter? This week I observed that comfort is easy.

Are these reactions and behaviors indicative of any specific characteristics? Such as friendliness vs. unfriendliness? Or security vs. insecurity? Or selfish narcissism vs. harmonious compassion? Or trust vs. wariness? Or easy vs. hard? Or are these reactions and behaviors more random based on circumstance and setting? I believe it is a fusion of situational individuality.

But I also believe that many (and probably most) of us, when we approach a stranger encounter, do so with a degree of wariness and perhaps (depending on circumstance) a certain amount of trepidation. All of the observations above are examples of strangers in passing; people we will likely never see again, or if we do it will again (likely) be a brief, passing encounter; and in these situations for most there is wariness (we are always on our guard), but likely little actual trepidation. But what about those first meetings initiated to lead to longer term relationships? How does one prepare for a stranger encounter such as attending a meeting of a social or civic organization for the first time? Or the first day of class? Or a job interview? Or a new job? We each have our methods and the point of this week's thought is not really to improve individual technique for disarming and charming, (though many of us could use that help), but rather (right now, at the beginning of this thought) I believe the point to be a better personal understanding of what I (through observations such as the passing stranger encounters) tend to perceive as a widespread lack of consideration for others. And though much of the analysis appears rhetorical (wariness + an acute sense of 'Me' + urgency mistaken as importance), by reminding myself of these human tendencies I actively hope to curb some personal frustrations caused by this epidemic of discourtesy. I need to come at this as a personal challenge to rein in my disgruntlement partially because I know I am unable to immediately raise levels of awareness, but mostly because my annoyance creates judgment which in turn perpetuates this cycle of incivility. Some may feel this is strongly stated and may disagree with the implied degree of impoliteness; those that do should get out more - alone.

With that said, I will also say that a majority of strangers encountered are not deliberately rude; merely unaware and impolite. Though there is an obviously noticeable number who cross the line from simple discourtesy to blatant and tactless disrespect. And perhaps this is made more noticeable by the factor of solitude. Is it possible that because someone is alone, an instinctive stigma is attached? This is an interesting thought that I believe may work in both directions. Perhaps people (especially those who are not alone) are more apt to disregard and/or shun the loner, and perhaps when I am alone I am more attuned (sensitive?) to perceived slights. Should I lower my standards and be more forgiving? Or should I maintain my standards and be unforgivingly judgemental? To maintain my standards will aid me in living my standards, but will also create the occasional potential for double standards. To lower my standards will create the potential for a personal dumbing-down, but will also aid me in being more agreeable and less surly. I have been told that I am surly. And as I say this I realize that many people may see surliness as discourteous. And so I find myself back in the cycle of incivility.

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

At this point I have just returned from last July and the post 'Free-Floating Happiness' where I again uploaded (into my thick skull) a lesson on Compassion for the Oblivious and Communal Responsibility. This refresher course reminds me that I have no choice but to find a way to come across as less surly while maintaining my high standards because I am (in some small part) responsible for other's oblivious discourtesy and that degree of responsibility is multiplied and magnified when I perpetuate the aforementioned cycle of incivility.

Yet I know that I will remain surly. If I cut that surliness though with compassionate understanding and a sense of humor to calm my inner turmoil, perhaps I can maintain and live my standards while reducing or (at least) quickening my frustration. This week's reminder has helped.

And though I feel better (in this moment), I am now disconcerted (in this moment). This week's thought feels trite; and contrived. I don't know how to argue the inarguable. I don't know how to move the seemingly immovable. I don't know how to unspin gold from yarn. I don't know how to productively substitute skepticism for another's certainty. I believe the freshest thought I have presented this week is the rhetorical analysis of human nature explaining our current cultural state of deference deprivation: wariness + an acute sense of 'Me' + urgency mistaken as importance. This formula combines the ancient instinct of diffidence and constraint for safety with the newly-hatched yearning for narcissistic complexity. This formula explains much more than disrespect and discourtesy. This formula tells a story of a lost people seeking a magical journey beyond the slag heaps of everyday existence. This formula exposes weakness and the reality of the slag heaps of everyday existence. Utilizing addition by subtraction, this formula shows the importance of respect and courtesy as a beginning.

Speaking about heresy and blasphemy, John Calvin said, "Some say that because the crime consists only of words there is no cause for such severe punishment. But we muzzle dogs; shall we leave men free to open their mouths and say what they please?" If we apply this to discourtesy and disrespect it helps me to understand that whether one is expressing their self verbally or through action and behavior, discourtesy and disrespect are not criminal and I should not in any way attempt to muzzle these expressions of individual choice. I should decide and act accordingly for myself, and when opportunity presents I should encourage a greater awareness and allow others to decide and act accordingly for their self.

Respect and courtesy is a beginning.

THE BASEBALL SONNET

A game of sacrifice and heart and home
An art that will entice with form and curves
Please stay in line, be safe, where 'ere you roam
To argue, bump, or strafe, have sure reserves
A streak of bourgeoisie keeps egos checked
A stretch of strategy helps thinking thrive
A steal within the rules earns one respect
A run of luck by fools keeps dreams alive
Don't hurry, loaf, or balk, or give up hope
Don't worry o'er a clock, but please keep pace
And if you're found to err, move on, don't mope
And if unsure it's fair, you should touch base
A hook of gloried fame that is unique
A pitch that doth proclaim 'Baseball Mystique'

I wrote the sonnet above several years ago. This week I was fortunate to attend a Major League Baseball game and saw the Cardinals beat the Cubs. Today I am puzzling over the evolution of the game. Many would say that the game has changed. I might argue that our interpretation and understanding of the game has changed, but the game itself has remained essentially the same. It has always incorporated Hobbes's 'three principal causes of quarrel': 1) Competition for gain; 2) Diffidence (or constraint) for safety; and 3) Glory (or honor) for reputation; and I believe this to be a nice summation of the essence of the game. Any disputatious exercise in any competitive arena, (with a neighboring tribe for fruit and nuts, on the dating scene, on a battlefield, in international commerce, in the boardroom, in the job market, on a baseball field...) requires strategy. It is when politics and/or emotions become entangled with a rational consideration of strategy that (I believe) the superficial appearance of the game changes, but the core Hobbesian essence of the game remains the same.

One apparent change is the higher expectations and standards for civility. A polite or well-mannered quarrel sounds contradictory and leads many to believe the game has changed; but if you review the three principal causes of quarrel, each one is still in place showing this change to be superficial. With civility we have stepped away from anarchy and with the higher standards we are stepping toward the state of reason required for more effective strategy and a more consistently well-played game. The game is still a quarrel. To retain honor and credibility (which is the third element of Hobbes's three) the game will still on occasion devolve into sand kicking, shouting, pushing, shoving, occasional fisticuffs, and the threat (and dangerous reality) of a hurled projectile. This intemperance will continue to become less frequent (but it will never disappear completely) as reason engendered by civility in turn gives birth to a higher level of civility. So even though (comparatively) cooler heads usually do prevail more quickly today than yesterday, (again) the core Hobbesian essence of the game remains the same.

Another change agent impacting the game is technology. This has created numerous distractions, many surrounding the commerce of the game, which I believe to be (in most ways) superficial to and separate from the game. There is one byproduct of technology that I want to look at more closely: I believe technology has created a change in the fan base. I believe it is because of technology that today there are (a lot) more casual fans, and by contrast (it seems) there are fewer serious fans.

The aforementioned distractions are designed to first attract the casual fan to the game and then distract them from the seriousness of the game. Once there, I believe the casual fan to bring a greater degree of emotion and politics to the game, which in turn can potentially lead the serious fan astray. Because of the increase in casual fans, it appears that our (the fan's) understanding of the game has wandered from a sincere exercise in learning and growth, and a respect for a strong work ethic, to an entertaining pastime that glorifies celebrity flair and talent, and fulfills one's need for status, recognition, and a sense of belonging. Please note that I say 'a fan's' understanding. A serious game (such as baseball) is one in which the participants (players and management) must learn and grow and work hard. Those players, owners, and managers who have the necessary talent must either come into the game with this understanding, learn (to learn and grow and work hard) quickly, or be saddled forever with some degree of ignominy.

I believe most fans of the game (casual and serious) want to be players. Based on their hard work on behalf of the game, I would maintain that many of the serious fans are players who merely lack some specific, critical skill, talent, and/or desire that keeps them from the field of play. A lack of skill or talent to excel at game play, does not excuse a lack of seriousness for the game. A lack of skill or talent to excel on the field is an opportunity for serious effort and productive input from a more objective viewpoint. A lack of desire to be on the field of play may indicate a lack of seriousness; or it could be a calculated strategy.

A serious fan of the game respects reason. A casual fan of the game is more likely to allow politics and emotion to jade understanding.

The reaction of a casual fan who becomes entangled with politics and emotion is often not serious and this (often verbal) reaction may simply be intended to provoke (in fun or not) another (serious or casual) fan. The reaction of a serious fan who becomes entangled with politics and emotion is apt to be more extreme.

A casual fan who becomes entangled and verbal often disentangles with the next distraction to come along. A serious fan is not easily distracted and when verbal, typically reasonably so; but when entangled (as we all invariably become) the serious fan should learn to quickly fall back on reason in order to become disentangled.

A casual fan does not understand the passion and intensity of a serious fan, interpreting it as supercilious contempt. A serious fan does not understand the careless indifference of a casual fan, interpreting it as lazy buffoonery.

A casual fan should explore the depth and learn the complexities and nuances of the game in an effort to become serious. A serious fan should search for ways to be asked by the casual fan for help in exploring the depth and learning the complexities and nuances of the game.

I have spent the majority of my thought this week on contrasting the serious and casual fan, and though I see that technology has changed the fan demographic, and even to an extent the player demographic, I still maintain that the core Hobbesian essence of the game remains the same.

A three-sentence synopsis: 1) The game has become more civil. 2) Technology has created a greater percentage (and of course a greater number) of casual fans. 3) The core Hobbesian essence of the game remains the same.

The game is serious; so whether one is coming to it as a participant or as a fan, the most serious will become the most prolific.

For the sake of the argument/discussion to follow we will say that there is an actual physical place called Hell, full of agonizing torment and anguish deserved and fitting for each of its inhabitants who have passed on from this empirical plane. I don't personally believe in a Hell as described, but that is an argument that is potentially inarguable and/or for another time. For the remainder of this written thought, Hell exists.

This week, because of a personal circumstance, I have been considering the claim that 'the road to Hell is paved with good intentions.' There are 2 possible interpretations: 1) good intentions + inaction = bad consequence; and 2) good intentions + faulty reasoning + ignorance + action = bad consequence. I may agree with #1 to a point.  All talk and no walk may lead to Hell, especially if an individual had been in a position to do good or to prevent harm. I would like to think though that I don't agree with scenario #2 because each one of us is saddled with an imperfect humanity that requires a certain amount of ignorance and utilizes mistakes as a learning tool; and I believe that effort as action (regardless of one's humanity) is of some value, as long as that action meets the minimum ethical requirements of legality and no physical harm. But I also know that I am currently swayed by recent personal good intentions provoking action that have created difficulty; (but were legal and caused no physical harm). I would like to (as objectively as possible) examine good intentions gone bad as described in scenario #2; and I would like to (most specifically) learn and grow from my ignorance, stubborn disobedience, arrogance, and short-sighted, (possibly) selfish action that has led to this difficulty.

I will begin by arguing against my instinct (or wishful thinking as the case may be) that good intent followed by some minimally ethical action does count for something and will mitigate harsh judgment in an afterlife (if there be one). In this Life we do allow intent to be introduced into a criminal defense in order to mitigate or even excuse otherwise unlawful action, so it is logically consistent that the same reasoning be applied to our afterlife entrance exams. But as I think about it, I'm not sure that the same logic would (or should) apply. Yes, we are imperfectly human, but an argument could be made that any eternal standards should be exceptionally high and any good intentions followed by bad consequence should focus on the consequence.

It is easy to admit that good intentions are often defined in terms of short term comfort which never stretches to ultimate (or eternal) consequence. Even when one tells one self that the resulting action is intended to benefit another, and especially when that 'other' is a loved one, we tend (in the moment) to think only that we can (heroically?) help and we take comfort in this thought and we act accordingly. To intend though is 'to have in mind a purpose or design' which implies thoughtful consideration which should reach further than the first positive thought we stumble over. But when one has thought through to a desired result and sees that result as good (or comfortable) it is easy to immediately define this as 'good intentions' and (from personal experience) we may not think further than this. Blinded by this light of 'Good' it becomes difficult for one to discern the shadows on the other side; and this contributes to a thought process that only reaches to this point of light and then utilizes the 'we'll cross that bridge when we come to it' technique for navigating the hazards beyond.

From this point in my thought I originally started whining and crying and justifying and making excuses for my ignorance, based on too many rules that are in constant flux creating a complex ambiguity that would not allow for long term vision - (a lot of words to say I was short-sighted and selfish). But upon further consideration this led me to differentiate between 'bad consequence' and 'adverse consequence' and from there to further differentiate between 'the natural order' and 'a synthetic order' of which either or both will be impacted (to varying degrees) by the consequence. (I believe) by differentiating in this manner we may set standards for admittance to Hell more accordingly. At first glance (I believe) that a bad consequence impacting the natural order, regardless of intent, should be held to the highest of standards and will contribute to the paving of that road to Hell. Excepting this one combination, to gauge any other mix of a bad or adverse consequence impacting the natural or synthetic order, one's intentions should be taken into account.

I will take a closer look...

First, definitions:

• Bad Consequence - any consequence or result of action produced by individual conscious choice, that creates more harm than benefit in the long-term or short-term with longer lasting consequence weighted appropriately.
• Adverse Consequence - any consequence or result of action caused or prompted by any significant influence beyond individual control, that creates more harm than benefit in the long-term or short-term with longer lasting consequence weighted appropriately. Life is filled with adversity, but this should never be an excuse for apathy or inaction. One must passionately exercise individual conscious choice to balance and battle those influences that originate outside of individual conscious choice yet in some way impact the individual.
• Natural Order - simply put, a matter of moral right and wrong, and the underlying systems in place that naturally uphold this order. If placed on a spectrum some may see Good at one end and Evil at the other; or Light and Dark; or Ethical Behavior and Unethical Behavior. For purposes of this discussion I see 'Natural Order' as a striving for Growth and an active avoidance of Atrophy, and I see the underlying structure as communal rules that come about naturally from a common ground of virtue.
• Synthetic Order - the struggle for power and control in an effort to convey meaning and purpose, resulting in an artificial system of administrative bureaucracy, strong-arm tyranny, and points in between. I see 'Synthetic Order' as forcing unquestioning quiescence thereby controlling the masses, encouraging divisiveness by means of an in-group ('Us') and an out-group ('Them'), and manipulating progress to fit specific agendas.

After formulation of these definitions, I still maintain that bad consequence impacting the natural order should absolutely be held to the highest standard.

I believe adverse consequence to be a part of the natural order allowing for learning and growth.

I believe adverse consequence impacting a synthetic order to be an opportunity for change.

I believe it likely that most adverse consequence impacting natural or synthetic order will lead to individual conscious choice (i.e. reaction), thus creating the potential (depending on reaction) for bad consequence as a result of adverse consequence. This shows that these differentiations are not clearcut or independent, but often overlap and flow in cause and effect relationships from action to consequence to individual conscious choice to further action to additional consequence impacting order, and on and on and on. I believe this also shows that these differentiations, (between bad and adverse consequence and between natural and synthetic order), are very useful for purposes of accountability.

I believe bad consequence impacting a synthetic order to be the one combination requiring an examination of intent. I believe a conscious effort to eliminate or change a synthetic order requires scrutiny to determine if an ethical decision-making process was utilized (as outlined in this previous post); this will assist in determining intent. I believe if good was sincerely intended, it is logical that this bad consequence /synthetic order combo should allow for this intent to mitigate judgment. I believe that consequence impacting synthetic order and immediately perceived (or perceived by specific factions) as bad may later be perceived (or perceived by opposing factions) as beneficial. I believe that a synthetic order should be recognized as such and that all individuals (and factions) should recognize, acknowledge, and respectfully allow for differing opinions regarding said synthetic order. I believe that in some circumstance legality should not be a consideration in determining intent. I believe I am ultimately responsible for any individual conscious choice that leads to action and has an impact.

To gain beneficial consequence there must be some pain. To minimize harm (i.e. bad consequence) requires foresight, compassion, and generosity. To navigate adverse consequence requires adaptability, passion, and humility.

To gain order there must be disorder. Natural order evolves to aid in individual learning and growth. Synthetic order exploits to atrophy one's ability to think and act for oneself.

Some would argue that if I or We took action based on good intentions and it resulted in bad consequence, then I or We should be excused for faulty reasoning and/or ignorance. Many of these same individuals would argue that if He, She, or They took action based on good intentions and it resulted in bad consequence, then He, She, or They should be held accountable for faulty reasoning and/or ignorance. We believe our good intentions trump their good intentions. We believe they are paving roads while we are building bridges. We believe our construction materials to be superior, our bridges to be more important, and our construction supervisor to be smarter. But I have to ask - What if we are all working for The Road Runner?

Beep, Beep...

Why do we feel the need to personify power?

A few weeks ago I said Power is the ability to decide and act, and I maintained that each one of us wields some power. In this sense one cannot hold on to power; one must act upon power.

Power must first be located and then temporarily acquired. And then for power to be recognized as power it must be unleashed, gifted, or let go.

If one acquires power, never uses it, and no one is aware, it is not power; it is an irrelevancy.

If one acquires power and successfully uses it as a threat, it is still power. This extended-release power only differs in the timing of its delivery.

Power is not created by (nor does it reside within) an individual or an identifiable group; it merely passes through.

Power is formed and lives in the cracks and crevices of the urgent and undeniable human need for interpretation and explanation.

There are many individuals who have become adept at folding and molding themselves into and around these gaps in understanding, thus appearing to possess the ability to hold on to power, and in some instances appearing to be the source of this power.

Some (perhaps many - or maybe most) of these individuals actually believe they are deserving and/or supreme; and some (perhaps many) actually believe they are the source of this power.

One (individual or group) may acquire a reputation as powerful, but this individual or group is working (often behind the scenes) to constantly restock and reload.

To wield power is simply human nature. There is power available to act upon, so we (as individuals or as groups) decide and act. For varying reasons, some are presented with more impactful opportunities to act.

There will always be power available to act upon because there will always be a lack of understanding and a desire for interpretation and explanation.

One may choose to haphazardly excavate the unknown depths in search of rich and rapaciously-rewarding veins of power, or one may choose to thoughtfully examine that power which is closer to the surface in an effort to connect knowns with unknowns.

Bad laws and rules come about when one acts upon power found in the deeper, darker recesses of (mis)understanding.

Good laws and rules are more likely to come about when one acts upon power that is exposed to some surface light of experience and reason.

Power is the father, Human Nature the mother, and the unknown depths the birthing place of tyranny.

Tyranny civilized, is Bureaucracy.

Today Humanity looks fondly back on tyranny believing bureaucracy to be the height of civilization.

It is time to move ahead.

To progress we must 1) adamantly, defiantly, and fiercely distance ourselves from all forms of tyranny, 2) de-personify power in the light of reason, and 3) allow laws and rules to come about naturally from a common ground of virtue.

It is time to move ahead.