hopelesshappiness.com

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.

I believe I may or may not have heard or dreamed some, none, or all of these understated and obliviously inspirational exaggerations in past or future heartfelt schemes devised to obtain some form of support for critically insignificant undertakings pregnant with bureaucracy:

• To take the next step we must make some sense of understanding and then leap the gaps to move ahead
• We are one as we are individual thinkers of one mind composed of many thoughts that will independently gel and create a great wisdom for us all.
• Like the friendly dogs and great philosophers of ancient Greece we can learn much from thinking and barking and wagging tails.
• To cover a wart with black shoe polish and then rub salt in it, only serves to dull the sheen.
• The wheel goes round and round as Life swims against the currency of time; so slow down and take purchase of the moment.
• Like language from another country that is foreign to our eyes and ears, our minds and our hearts must be diligent to sniff out meaning that will not leave the bad taste of a foul tongue.
• Be wary of the big burrito as it is afraid and difficult to digest.
• To prove the existence of goodness one must see the goodness of existence; for without these things Life would be less meaningful.
• I sit under the kitchen light of reason because thunder never booms twice if there's no one under the fallen forest trees crying out for help; and if there is, I am always here to help.
• We can do this! Whether you are with me or not, we can pull together as a team and refuse to not not let this get done. We can do this!
• Gold is only a color; unless it is a metal - then it is both.
• I, (like all of humanity), have weakness to cross and bear, and I, (like no one and everyone), bask in the hot-blooded glory of sunshine on a cool, mossy boulder signifying the gratification of effort well-conceived, a job well-concluded, and its rewards well-concealed.
• To delve the depths of my profundity so I can better interpret, comprehend, and explain to you the ways of the world is a thankless job that you need not thank me for, but one day soon you will appreciate my exalted insights and express your gratitude.
• I may run for office.

1. On Monday of this week, at 12:38am I received an email from my dentist's office requesting I follow a link to electronically confirm an appointment for Wednesday at 3pm. At approximately 10:10am I did so.
2. On Monday of this week, at 3:00pm I received a text from my dentist's office requesting I text back "YES" to confirm an appointment for Wednesday at 3pm. At 3:01pm I complied with this request.
3. On Monday of this week, at 5:42pm I received a phone call from my dentist's office asking that I press '1' to confirm an appointment for Wednesday at 3pm. I was very polite to the robot lady and I pressed '1'.

I am sure that somewhere in the piles of paperwork I am presented (it seems) each time I grace a medical office with my presence, I have granted permission for communication by any (and I now suppose all) of these various transmissive thoroughfares. In the midst of these marvels of modern messaging, I vacillate between annoyance and amusement. In hindsight I am bewildered, and I am curious as to what I may learn from this.

Upon consideration one might think that this house of dentistry is not a trusting lot. But one also has to concede that this distrust may be well placed; after all, what better thing to blow off than a biannual confrontation between my soft tissue and their grinders, picks, and axes. And because of this, perhaps the numerous reminders are meant to play on one's guilt, knowing that "I forgot" won't hold up. Though for those of us who are responsible even in the face of pain and adversity, the overriding message is one of adversarial negativity.

Or perhaps I am over-thinking (and they are under-thinking), in that perhaps it is the ease and simplicity of the process that encourages us all to (at times) choose automation over animation; (animation being defined as 'personal human interaction that enlivens', and automation being defined as 'desensitized human interaction programmed for passive efficiency'). In this context automation (or for that matter, animation) may or may not involve actual human contact.

A closer look...

I believe that automation does have its place, but I do not believe that automation is conducive to sincere human interaction. With this in mind I see the spectrum of automation to run from a simple statement or presentation of fact (at one end) to any rote citation of certainty unsupportable by fact (at the other end). The 'fact' end feels solid and stable. The 'certainty' end feels slippery and treacherous. In the example from my dentist's office the first appointment reminder was a fact that felt like a solid business practice, but as they piled on, their degree of certainty (that this appointment was the most important upcoming event in my trivial and meaningless life) came to feel manipulative. So (to reiterate) the ease with which this automation was implemented encouraged a lack of serious consideration of other options (such as confirming that I have never missed an appointment and adjusting the reminders accordingly), thus leading to a dumbing-down of human interaction, and bringing me to their office with a bad taste in my mouth; (which I am sure was not appreciated).

I believe that even in this example of a visit to the dentist, human interaction holds much potential for inspiration and progress leading to a complexity and depth in learning and growth otherwise unattainable. One might argue that this brief, everyday transactional exchange is unlikely to produce much complexity and depth anyway, (made even more difficult by the fist in my mouth), but we never had the opportunity to explore because I came in (annoyed and amused) with a preconceived notion that based on their degree of automation, they were uninterested in animation.

So how does one pursue animation in an everyday transactional exchange? Or in the face of bureaucracy? Or cultural custom? Or bias? Or personal agendas? Or (the aforementioned) hard and fast certainty? These are all circumstances that when left to their own devices are more likely to lead to automation. Again, how do I choose and encourage animation?

I am at risk of repeating myself...

As always, one must begin with oneself...

Perhaps we need some rules for automation...

I recently made a rule for myself that before I do an Internet search to answer a question or resolve an argument that is not urgent and immediately applicable, I must wait 10 minutes; (examples of urgent and immediately applicable might include a recipe in the midst of cooking dinner, a homework assignment due in 10 minutes, or the Heimlich Maneuver). What I have found is that in some instances I discover the answer or resolve the argument without automated assistance, thus exercising my mind instead of my fingers. And (in the case of opinionated disagreement) this allows for a consideration of all (or at least some) other options for resolution specific to this circumstance, instead of strict reliance on precedent or resolution based on the current balance of power. In other instances I later remember forgetting a previous question showing the relative unimportance of that specific 'need' for automation, so a new 10 minutes kicks in; and I (of course) don't remember how frequently I have forgotten inconsequential trivia that otherwise would have been an automated waste of effort. And in those instances where I do eventually rely on some automated assistance I put a greater value on the acquired information, because I had to work harder for its acquisition. I believe, based on this week's thought, I will increase the waiting time for this circumstance to 30 minutes; but I also believe that each circumstance should be assessed individually to determine an appropriate wait. And this leads me to Rule #1: Purposely UNDERMINE the ease and simplicity of automation. Doing so, I also believe will increase the likelihood of animation.

I believe in addition to customizing wait times before implementing automation, we should, whenever possible, (Rule #2) CUSTOMIZE the degree of automation to fit each impacted individual. In the example of my dentist's office I have already suggested that they should have considered my track record before sending three reminders (all confirmed) in a period of 17 hours and 4 minutes. In the case of a customer service script or other typically brief, everyday transactional exchange, as one becomes familiar with a Customer, (or a Customer with a Customer Service Specialist), be bold and deviate from the script. I believe there to be one or more examples of automation customization for most any circumstance.

This brings me to Rule #3: SHARE personal stories and vulnerabilities, with a sense of humor. Remember that in context my written thought is a consideration of how to choose and encourage animation over automation in circumstance conducive to the ease and simplicity of automation. I believe admitting to uncertainty and fallibility (i.e. Being Human), and presenting with a sense of humor will lower barriers and encourage enlivening communication that may ultimately lead to productive relationships and progress. Serious certainty is counterproductive to learning and growth.

And this leads to Rule #4: ARGUE against automation, and for animation, to any receptive audience. There are varying ways to present your argument, but first and foremost you must have a receptive audience. A receptive audience is defined as one (individual or group) that acknowledges a choice. If one is focusing on current values and/or on the past (usually in the form of blame), this individual (or group) is less receptive and more likely unwilling to consider choices for the future. This individual (or group) is stuck in hard and fast certainty that is believed applicable regardless of circumstance, and any efforts to promote animation will be staunchly met with automation. In some of these cases it may benefit to argue (if for no other reason than) to practice one's technique; but If this is a group with a vocal spokesperson, or long-standing doctrine, or other constrictive parameters, one may still successfully persuade some individuals within the group.

Once receptivity is identified and/or an argument is launched an effective persuasion technique is by example. Personal human interaction can enliven, regardless of differences in values. If one can show that, and better yet, get another to reciprocate, then progress has been made. Often, due to situational circumstance, this emotional connection may be the only opportunity for persuasion, but in any situation persuasion is likely to be most effective when a sincere bond is formed.

In an argument against automation (to a receptive audience) one might also redefine automation, shifting attention from its ease and simplicity to the fact that it is lazy. One could also test the middle ground to determine another's receptiveness to moderation by redefining the opposing positions as extremes. These two examples are appeals to one's character (i.e. Lazy Extremist vs. Understanding and Diligent), and are used to strengthen the bond and widen the distance from automation, thus closing the gap on animation. But if presented before an emotional connection is made, one's audience may feel as if they are being insulted and/or attacked.

Effective argument and persuasion must be layered - from an emotional connection, to an appeal to character, and finally to an introduction of logic and reason. Logic is not logical and reason is not reasonable when another is serious about their certainty.

Automation - ('desensitized human interaction programmed for passive efficiency') - reflects certainty.

Animation - ('personal human interaction that enlivens') - percolates with uncertainty.

We should:

1. Purposely undermine the ease and simplicity of automation;
2. Customize the degree of automation to fit each impacted individual;
3. Share personal stories and vulnerabilities, with a sense of humor; and
4. Argue against automation, and for animation, to any receptive audience.

In six months I am going to connect with my Dentist.

In a letter dated October 31, 1819 Thomas Jefferson wrote the following:

"Happiness the aim of life.
Virtue the foundation of happiness.
Utility the test of virtue...
...Active, consists in agreeable motion; it is not happiness, but the means to produce it."

Mr. Jefferson wrote this letter as a statement of personal philosophy, and I see this quoted portion as a workable outline and progression succinctly consistent with my thoughts on Happiness.

I see Active as rational skepticism in search of personal authenticity and (undiscoverable) universal truths.

I see Utility as productive functional exertion that strives toward personal purpose, and is applicable to some tangible one or some tangible thing.

I see Virtue as balanced understanding that allows an active application of utility that in turn expands personal and universal wisdom.

I see Happiness as pursuit - unceasing, boundless, demanding, and edifying.

I see Quiescence as idle acceptance of this moment's (real or delusional) status quo.

I see Waste as minimal exertion expended solely to avoid discord, conflict, and/or the necessity of a personal opinion.

I see Vice as gross misunderstanding of personal purpose that stifles utility and constricts personal and universal wisdom.

I see Ignorance as hard and fast certainty - unquestioning, unafraid, condescending, and comfortable.

 

First one must choose to be active or not...

...then

...As defined above:

Quiescence leads to Waste which is the champion of Vice which can create circumstance conducive to Ignorance.

...and...

To be Active leads to Utility which is the standard-bearer for Virtue which can urge one toward Happiness.

Choose.