hopelesshappiness.com

I grew up hearing "If you can't say anything nice, don't say anything at all." Though the results are similar, in practice, I believe that "If you can't say anything truthful AND productive, don't say anything at all" more accurately reflects my thought process. But even from this angle, I do not completely agree. I don't even mostly agree. And I believe this helps to explain why I am sometimes (or often?) construed as surly.

To look at this question in terms of morality, is it more virtuous to be nice, or to be truthful AND productive? One can break it down further by asking, is it more virtuous to be truthful or productive? And then, does nice trump truthful? Does productive trump nice?

It is often more difficult to define morality in black and white terms, than one would like to think.

Morality is typically defined by adherence to certain virtues. But as illustrated above, when two or more virtues collide, morality becomes muddled. And when morality becomes muddled, one is inclined to argue the relative and applicable merits of one virtue over another; and suddenly morality is subjective. Though I am not completely certain (yet) what my ultimate intent (for this week's written thought) is, I am quite certain that it is not to argue over virtues and circumstance. Additionally, I do not want to argue for relativism (as it may apply to subjective morality) and against (a degree of) absolutism (as it applies to the moral maxim "Minimize Harm and Maximize Good"). I know; "a degree of absolutism" is a bit relativistic (and therefore a bit contradictory), but I will always believe that indiscriminate, random killing is immoral, so I must believe in (at least) a degree of absolutism thus refuting complete relativism. Yet even in this example, one could argue the definition of indiscriminate. Regardless, from this atrocity, we could list other evils and many of us will likely agree on the immorality of many; but there will come a point when we will disagree and morality will again become muddled---and subjective.

So, now that we're past all that, where am I going?

Perhaps the next consideration would be further analysis of the two methods (suggested above) for determining individual morality. These are: 

1. considering two or more agreed-upon virtues that due to circumstance have collided or are on a collision course; and
2. without considering circumstance, make a complete and objective list of virtues and vices, that may be identified as such by any significant number of individuals (in a group or otherwise); and then individually, subjectively rank the virtues (from the top down) and the vices (from the bottom up) and identify the middle range of overlapping virtues and vices that (for you) do not constitute morality or immorality, but are (again, for you) neutral or harmless.

I have already stated that I do not want to argue virtues and circumstance as described in #1 above.

So, depending on the yardstick, (Do No Harm, Minimize Harm/Maximize Good, Political Values and Beliefs, Religious Values and Beliefs, Cultural Custom and Mores, and/or a combination of these and others), the middle range as found in #2 above, will differ (sometimes drastically) between individuals, bringing us back to muddled, subjective morality. Morality is subjective; but one who insists otherwise and defines morality in objective, black and white terms will be recognized (in #2 above) by the solid, single line drawn across their list, definitively dividing virtue from vice, with no middle range at all. It is with these individuals that I most often practice "If you can't say anything truthful AND productive, don't say anything at all." But how do I know truthfulness will be ineffective, until I put forth the effort. Perhaps an example (such as being nice vs. being truthful) would be a starting point. Perhaps I don't give some individuals enough credit. Perhaps I should not give up so easily. Perhaps I should work harder.

But why should I work harder? Why is it important to realize the individual subjectivity of morality?

The first answer that comes to mind is, that by doing so I recognize and validate another's values and thus, in a reflective manner, I also validate my own values. And going one level deeper, this validation in turn nourishes empathy for another's (potentially differing) values that not only allows me to respectfully question their values, but also demands that I question my own values. True that these realizations do not at all ensure reciprocal validation, respect, and empathy, but one must start with oneself and actively hope for and work toward mutual beneficence. As always, much easier said than done...

This individual movement from validation to respect and empathy to skepticism, if done with sincerity, will periodically lead to modification; and this potential for progress additionally justifies the realization of the individual subjectivity of morality by avoiding the alternative of stagnant quiescence, and by aiding one to find a sweet spot (fleeting though it may be) between the relativistic absurdity and the absolute certainty of Life. Even when the result is a  revalidation of previously held values, sincere movement with respect and empathy, is in itself, moral.

...though some may disagree...

"Not the truth in whose possession any man is, or thinks he is, but the honest effort he has made to find out the truth, is what constitutes the worth of man."
--Gotthold Ephraim Lessing (1729-1781)

To believe in the necessity of pursuit compels one to expend thoughtfully persistent effort (as active hope) for progressively higher Truths; and some measure of discomfort.

To believe that one possesses an ultimate or highest Truth is to sentence oneself to a Life of lazy, trite security (as passive hope) for some measure of comfort.

Progress requires process.

Comfort is often found in routine, ritual, and bureaucracy.

Comfort is not a friend of progress.

These are not new thoughts; rather, thoughts relevant to this week.

I have found that process may lead to routine, which, in turn, may lead to comfort. To combat this possibility, process should be an ever-evolving progression. So, just as progress requires process, process requires progress. Discomfort is mandatory.

Logically sequential thought must lead to logically sequential action. Process evolves when the outcome proves not to be maximally efficient and/or maximally beneficial. Even when an outcome proves to be the desired or planned outcome, it will never be Perfection. Therefore, process must evolve.

This week, I developed a piece of a process that was subsequently praised for its creative functionality. Praise is (or should be considered) a distraction. Even the most inspired of inspirations, if left to fossilize as THE PROCESS, will soon devolve into routine, ritualistic, bureaucratic comfort. For progress to occur, process must evolve.

It is interesting to observe how some individuals lose focus and deviate from sequential logic. It appears that the most common challenge is to be distracted by concurrent/related sequences that are not specifically applicable. As these related sequences pop up, they should be examined for applicability, but if not applicable, they should be set aside until resolution/agreement is reached on the current sequence.

Some are distracted by unrelated sequences---"Look, a butterfly!"---and never find their way back.

And some are distracted by a personal desire for attention and praise, often inefficiently expending effort to consider and map out their next point or response, while only guessing at any point or counterpoint they may be responding to.

Some may argue that in distraction one may find surprises that may lead to otherwise undiscovered beauty or truth. I agree that one can learn and grow through purposeful dissociation, but to mix amusement and disorder with sequential logic can only be counterproductive to efficient progress.

Enough said?

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

Enough said.

The following quotes are not exact quotes, but they are an accurate representation of the progression of responses I received as I've worked through a recent/ongoing health challenge. These observations do not in any way detract from the quality of care I ultimately received or the professionalism of those who provided that care.

"We don't know what may cause it, but we think (this)... So no, that is not a factor."

"Based on your description, this sounds like it's probably nothing to worry about; but if it gets worse, call us back, or go to an emergency room."

"Based on your description, this sounds like it's probably nothing to worry about; but if it gets worse, call us back, or go to an emergency room."

"In the future, since it appears your symptoms are stable, before you come to the emergency room you should probably call your doctor's office to see if they want it treated as an emergency."

"You have a 95% blockage in the right coronary artery, and a 75% blockage in another artery. It's a good thing you came in when you did."

"I am impressed that you are so attuned to your body, and you understand what it is telling you."

"You are required to watch this movie, and then I am required to go over these discharge materials, including possible side effects of your medicines, precautions, warning signs, do's and don'ts for when you get home, diet recommendations... ... ... ... ..." (90 minutes later) "... ... ... So, if you have any questions, experience any of the issues we've discussed, or feel the slightest discomfort DO NOT hesitate to call your doctor's office or come to the emergency room."

The litigiously bureaucratic nature of our society has encouraged overly-cautious medical professionals and health-care administrators (including the insurance industry); which in turn has created a slightly-neurotic, health-obsessed public; which in turn has created overworked, jaded medical professionals who only have time for prevailing opinion; and these factors all combined have created a difficult-to-navigate (yet very interesting) dynamic between all parties seeking or providing or administering or paying for or in any way (even peripherally) involved in health care.

This same dynamic can be found in our recent/ongoing "us and them" desire for conformity in teaching and learning.

"We cannot fill in all the gaps, but we believe (this)... So, no, your doubts, thoughts, and questions are not valid."

"This sounds like it is irrelevant, but if your doubts continue, please come back to talk to us, or refer to this book or that expert."

"This sounds like it is irrelevant, but if your doubts continue, please come back to talk to us, or refer to this book or that expert."

"In the future, since it appears your questions are unanswerable and contradictory to our teachings, you should probably refer to this book or that expert, before creating such an uproar."

"You have a significant point in an interesting direction, and you have some valid questions. I agree that it is time we searched for different answers."

"I am impressed that you think outside the box, and that you are open to all possibilities."

"You are required to watch this movie, and then I am required to teach these materials that will instill a sense of respect and empathy for those who are not us."

Yes, this is progress; but we still commonly differentiate between us and them. We must continue to cycle (and I believe we will) until we reach:

"You are required to watch this movie, and I am required to teach this history of humanity, going back to a time when we believed in fractious isolationism and group divisiveness; a time before we recognized and harnessed the power of global interdependence and found a universally-beneficial common ground based on reason."

From dictionary.com - Accomplishment: 1. An act or instance of carrying into effect; fulfillment; 2. Something done admirably or creditably; 3. Anything accomplished; deed; achievement; 4. Any acquired ability or knowledge.

This week I have been rather lethargic and uninspired. Physically, it has been a very tough week. So, in some ways the simple act of thinking and writing in a semi-coherent manner is a greater accomplishment than in some weeks when more numerous deeds were fulfilled in a more creditable or admirable manner. But how is that judged? If I am the judge, then I can take circumstance into account and subjectively judge lesser objective accomplishment as greater achievement. But at the end of one's Life, though one may be given some benefit of doubt (especially from loved ones), ultimately, one's legacy---(a summation of accomplishment)---will be judged objectively.

This week I am experiencing a heavy, achy, clammy spirit. From a subjective perspective, I have accomplished much and performed admirably and creditably. From an objective perspective, I have accomplished little and performed just enough to get by.

The following is modeled after Samuel Taylor Coleridge's The Rime of the Ancient Mariner (Part 1 and Part 2) with exact (or very near) quotes denoted by quotation marks and italics.

The Lament of the Ancient Derelict

Part 1

1. It is an ancient Derelict
Who posts here once a week
With gray-flecked beard, and fiery eye
Fool tongue trapped in his cheek.

2. The Internet was open wide
A platform for his talk
No one arrived; no one to hear
No one to point and gawk.

3. He paid no never mind to this
Each week he kept on talking
Unjustified; there's some would say
Twas he, he kept on mocking.

4. He works to grab them with his wit
His savvy and his cool
He listens to his echoed tripe
The Derelict still the Fool.

5. No one to hear; no one to scoff
No one to contradict
"And thus spake on that ancient man"
The wild-eyed Derelict.

6. The Truth was cheered, and Wisdom sought
Tied up with Happiness
All tempered with reality
And shadowed Hopelessness.

7. His journey thus began alone
Armed with his bow and sword
Those few he asked to come along
Refused to come aboard.

8. 'To Hell with them,' he stayed the path
With faith that he'd persuade.
But thoughts and words unheard left him
Discouraged and dismayed.

9. Nonetheless, he rambled on
And found some rough terrain
A rocky, stumbling path that brought
Adversity and pain.

10. The path thus far; what was to come
No gypsy could predict
"And thus spake on that ancient man"
The wild-eyed Derelict.

11. Scraped and bruised he fell and crawled
And fought and cried and cursed
Driven by his need to slake
His hunger and his thirst.

12. A storm came up; the wind did howl
The rain came down like lead
Yet he could not, despite the fray
Leave unheard words unsaid
So driven on he hunkered down
"And southward aye he fled."

13. Or so he thought, but there was ice
And snow and sleet and cold
A land outside of time and place?
A mystery to unfold.

14. He felt the heat of eyes on him
He felt a chill most strange
The land was deathly calm and still
He called out for exchange.

15. "At length did cross an Albatross"
Were these the eyes so feared?
A bird that brought good luck, some thought,
Put gray into the beard.

16. He heard the cracking ice retort
A loud-sharp pang of sound
He felt the bird nearby as he
Traversed the slippery ground.

17. He found his way to trees and bush
The Albatross perched near
Sheltered from the ice and snow
The bird congealed his fear.

18. But with a fire and newfound warmth
A sudden melancholy
Reminded him of distant dreams
The fool and his folly.

19. He eyed the bird and questioned all
He pondered how and why
He saw that bird for what it was
Superstition that must die.

20. "Truth save thee, ancient Derelict
From the fiends that plague thee thus!---
Why look'st thou so?---With sword and bow
He slew the ALBATROSS."

Part 2

21. The sun now rose assuring him
That it was meant to be
The bird had died in search of Truth
Though some would disagree

22. Those who refused to come aboard
He felt their presence near
Their judgment weighing down on him
Their cocksure cloak of fear.

23. "And he had done a hellish thing,
And it would work 'em woe:
For all averred, he had killed the bird"
That put them in the know
"Ah wretch! said they, the bird to slay,"
That put them in the know.

24. Of course, it was imaginings
He heard within his head
Those very same who would not hear
Now filled him with cold dread
The spirit voice of all as one
Those past and those ahead.

25. But No! He argued with himself
He must stay skeptical
To question why; to seek the Truth;
No time to gather wool.

26. So in this melancholy state
He traveled on again
To lands of people he once knew
A place where he'd once been.

27. But he had changed, and they had not
They did not understand
For they'd found comfort and good cheer
In this, their candied land.

28. He looked around and saw great things
Much Beauty and some Truth
But they lived day to day, to daze
Hypnotically uncouth.

29. Knowledge, knowledge, every where,
And all the minds did shrink;
Knowledge, knowledge, every where,
Yet no one dared to drink.

30. He caught a whiff of stagnant rot
He glimpsed a glimpse obscene
He felt the crawl of slimy things
That oozed a slimy sheen.

31. But no one else took heed or note
"The death-fires danced at night;"
Bewitched by powers beyond their ken
Bedeviled by their fright.

32. They lived a dream of mice, not men
Caught up in this, their maze
Unwilling to besmirch their hope
Or venture from their haze.

33. So in daylight the Derelict
Commenced to lift the shroud
From o'er the bird that died for Truth;
A silence choked the crowd.

34. "Ah! Well a-day! What evil looks
Had he by old and young!
Instead of the cross, the Albatross
Around his neck was hung."