hopelesshappiness.com

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.

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.