hopelesshappiness.com

With the help of Jean-Paul Sartre and Leonard Cohen, this week I discovered that I am two different individuals: 1) I am the person I see myself to be as seen by me when no one is watching, and 2) I am the person I see myself to be as seen by me through the eyes of others. But which is the truer self? When no one is watching am I delusional because I am unsubstantiated, or am I more honest because I am not being judged? And is the reflected image I see in the eyes of others more accurate because it is a composite that likely dictates behavior and defines reality, or is this judgment not to be trusted because it is formulated from a need for cooperation that is driven (at least in part) by (a necessary and often productive) manipulation and deceit? These questions may be rhetorical; or I may come back to them later.

These two separate entities will never share space because once seen by even one other individual the walls of the blind have come down exposing one to the elements of public scrutiny. I am either watched, or not; there is no middle ground. Often, we are influenced by a fear of being watched, which (if examined closely) I believe is the same as being watched. Too often, we suppress our unwatched self to a point where we truly believe that our ‘watched’ self is all that matters. It would be sad to think that one could believe and behave as if their ‘unwatched’ self did not exist. It is also sad to think that one could feel or wish that their ‘watched’ self did not exist.

Please note: I do not intend for ‘watched’ to infer any kind of paranoid / big brother state of mind. By ‘watched’ I simply mean everyday human interaction, some of which may be confining or dictatorial, but much of which can be reflective of positive, illuminating, compassionate, and/or loving relationships with others including teachers, classmates, co-workers, mentors, acquaintances, friends, and family. For the sake of expediency and clarity, from this point forward I will refer to ‘unwatched’ as the unrevealed self, and I will refer to ‘watched’ as the interactive self.

These thoughts to this point help me to understand how / why I (at times) feel conflicted; and how / why I am able to lie to myself; and how / why I sometimes, (when talking to others), will say one thing while thinking something completely different. The inconsistency is (it appears) inevitable, because the interpretive perspective (interactive or unrevealed) is constantly in flux. If I were to make an educated guess, I believe we probably allow our interactive perspective to have a greater influence on our unrevealed perspective, but I wonder how much of that impact is constructive. Because there is no middle ground the flux of each perspective must be distinct and separate, yet there should be a healthy interplay. I believe it to be (both personally and culturally) healthy (and in many circumstances, necessary) to avoid excessive revelation and to thoughtfully consider potential consequences before speaking and/or acting. But I also believe it to be healthy to acknowledge extremes and recognize socially appropriate behavior for what it is and for the purpose it serves. And I believe it to be healthy if these dynamic perspectives are simultaneous and reciprocal.

So, if I am a single embodiment of two different individuals that will (and should) always remain distinct and separate, and if I can define one of those two individuals as an affiliation of connected and reflected images – (a closed loop of interactive understanding), then could this mean that there is a universal consciousness AND there is individual conation. Do I (as two separate entities) outnumber all of Humanity? The answer appears to be ‘Yes’ unless (as I asked in the first paragraph) my unrevealed perspective is delusional. This begets the question, if I (or one of me) is not delusional, then how does this play into free will? If it is my unrevealed self that is capable of individualism, then how is free will possible when it cannot be acted upon? It appears (again, if I am not delusional) that unadulterated free will is only possible through unrevealed thought; which seems (at first glance) to defeat the purpose. But here is where I would argue that a free flow reciprocity between the unrevealed self and the interactive self will influence choices which in some circumstance approximates and/or can be interpreted as free will. This in turn strongly encourages a deeper exploration of the unrevealed self.

I do not believe I am delusional. I believe acknowledgment, recognition, and thoughtful consideration of the unrevealed self is more honest. I believe that the reflected image I see in the eyes of others is valid and (as far as ‘perception is reality’) accurate. I believe perceptions can and should change; frequently. I believe the ‘truer self’ is a synthesis of the interactive self and the unrevealed self; and I believe that each synthesis will create a new unrevealed self and a new interactive self thus leading to a new synthesis.

I have faith that I outnumber all of Humanity AND I know for a fact that I am but a tiny fraction of all of Humanity. Now by proposing this juxtaposition of faith and fact I have added depth to an active unrevealed self by recognizing it as an ever-evolving denouement of faith, and I have acknowledged the volitional interactive self as a perceptive fact. Put more simply, the interactive self must be fact because perception is reality, and the unrevealed self must be faith because I will never know as it will remain forever unsubstantiated. Some may argue that others are able to intuit my character / unrevealed self and to an extent this is possible, but regardless it remains ‘faith’ as there is still and always will be a gap of uncertainty. Additionally, the esoteric nature of my unrevealed self at times allows even me only fleeting glimpses of certain aspects that are beyond words, yet I feel their energy and I have faith that these transcendental insights will contribute toward my ongoing cycles of synthesis.

By associating faith with the unrevealed self and fact with the interactive self I am not pitting faith against fact, but rather suggesting an additional level of understanding and cooperative flow between the two. Unfortunately, I believe we too often mistake faith for fact as illustrated by our misconception of dictated dogma as faith. It is interesting that organized religion depends on an interactive perspective which is fact-based, whereas esoteric spirituality (and inner peace) depend on an unrevealed perspective which is faith-based. Yet faith (from where I sit) seems to more generally be considered a critical aspect of organized religion and not as often recognized, acknowledged, or utilized as an expression of the unrevealed self and as a potential path to inner peace and spirituality; (but then I guess I would perceive this from others because this expression would be unrevealed).

Regardless, I do believe there is deference given to a perceived majority associating faith with religious myth and ritual, but I believe that this perceived majority is in all likelihood a simple vocal majority. If one reasons through this process it is logically apparent that faith should be personal to each individual and should come from within the unrevealed self. So when one loses faith in organized religion it is really a recognition that the organizational aspect will always be in the realm of the interactive fact-based self and will never completely fulfill one’s unrevealed faith-based needs. And it is with this understanding of faith that I want to further explore the loss of faith within the unrevealed self.

I understand that one can find a personal faith within the unrevealed self through the prompting and encouragement of an organized, interactive initiative of faith; however, I have to thoughtfully ask – Is this search for faith unduly influenced and is the resulting ‘found’ faith misguided? And if the answer to this question (to any appreciable degree) is ‘Yes’ then I believe this is one way to actually lose faith because it has been driven out by fact-based doctrine masquerading as faith. (This is essentially what I stated in the previous paragraph.)

There are many who are not involved or only superficially involved with organized religion, but find interactive fulfillment through other outlets including other social organizations, volunteer organizations, community initiatives, political organizations, educational efforts, work, school, friends, and family. These are all important and worthwhile efforts (including many with religious affiliations) that aid in that aforementioned synthesis toward a truer self. The danger today, with the demands and busyness of everyday life, is overinvolvement. If one allows the interactive self to dominate, thus neglecting the unrevealed self, one can lose faith because their view is obstructed.

Some may consciously choose to suppress or ignore the unrevealed self because it is easier, or more comfortable, or because they are afraid of what they may see. To closely examine and actively seek an understanding of the unrevealed self is very hard work and (again) in this modern day there are many opportunities for interactive distraction that can encourage an avoidance of the potential pain and hard work inherent in this process. This avoidance results in a loss of faith.

But, as previously stated in the other direction, one should also not become over involved with the unrevealed self, neglecting the interactive self. This too can lead to a loss of faith by (instead of obstructing the view) creating an overwhelming sense of demoralizing befuddlement. (The exaggeration of excessive alliteration in this paragraph is purposeful, to help make the point.) Faith implies a ‘Leap’ that must be made safely to make some sense of the inexorable gap of uncertainty; but an overload of arcane ambiguity produces a dazzling complexity that will make it impossible to leap safely. I am more likely to blindly stumble over the edge or misjudge the gap and leap into obscurity, thus losing my faith by immersing myself in its brilliance; (i.e. unable to see the forest for the trees). It is important for there to be some balance between the unrevealed self and the interactive self for an efficiently productive synthesis.

Finally, when we assess our progress, we typically measure results tangibly, from an interactive perspective. To measure from an unrevealed perspective is piling faith on top of faith, intensifying the uncertainty, which can lead one to the unbalanced scenario as described in the previous paragraph. I said above that to seek an active understanding of the unrevealed self is hard (but necessary) work, yet if there is a disconnect between a superficial or minimally interactive self and a thoughtfully active unrevealed self, it may at times be difficult to see the value of this hard work; and it may be difficult to keep the faith when one feels alone and uncertain because of this lack of substantiation.

So, in this context of faith as it originates within the unrevealed self, and fact as a perception of our connected and reflected interactive self, one can lose faith by:

1. mistaking a fact-based interactive perspective as faith-based;
2. becoming over involved in fact-based interactive associations thus neglecting the unrevealed self;
3. consciously choosing to suppress or ignore the unrevealed self because it is easier and more comfortable dealing with only the interactive self;
4. becoming over involved with faith-based unrevealed considerations thus losing perspective; and
5. not seeing the results of the hard work put into an active understanding of the unrevealed self.

In my Life I have made stops at each one of these crossroads; some, more than once. In some cases I have stayed a bit then simply moved on; in other settlements I have been run out of town; and in some I have had to pull myself from the muck and mire and limp away. But so far, each time, I have somehow managed to rediscover the necessary faith that will carry me on; a rejuvenating faith that I have only ever found within my unrevealed self…

 “All that has dark sounds has duende. And there’s no deeper truth than that … Those dark sounds are the mystery, the roots that cling to the mire that we all know, that we all ignore, but from which comes the very substance of art.”
       –Federico Garcia Lorca; Spanish Poet and Playwright; (1898 – 1936).

We have a choice: one can choose to live Life superficially, as they are told; or one can decide that there is an art to living Life, and choose complexity and depth. When one chooses complexity and depth, Life must include ‘dark sounds.’  Duende is not possible without these dark sounds, yet duende is not solely made up of these dark sounds. Duende for me is about survival, not despite these dark sounds, but because of these dark sounds. Duende is difficult to define, yet I know it when I feel it. Duende is nearly impossible to summon at will, hard to hold on to, yet so embraceable. Duende is ardent and frenzied and fervent, yet it will not consume. Duende is creation and death. Duende is intimate and ferocious. Duende is paradoxical; filled with the joy of Light and suffused with the pain and fear of Living. Duende is necessary.

I would like to think that my Life is an expression of character, but to consciously think that would be an oversimplification. According to Lorca, “duende is a force not a labour, a struggle not a thought.” So staying consistent with (all of) Lorca’s thoughts and with my written thought above, to live Life artfully one must embrace the unknown and therefore can never consistently define one’s character because one can never anticipate, plan for, mold, or control duende. One can never adequately express a character except in hindsight; and then, to do so, stymies the art of living Life. To attach meaning to the mysterious and ineffable dilutes the creative moment and weakens the creative potential of the next moment. This is not to say that this stepping back and taking stock should never happen, because it will; and in some circumstance, necessarily so. But to gain perspective, one does lose some essence; (see this post ‘The Essence of Happiness‘ for further discussion on the nature of one’s essence). And no – I am not now equating ‘duende’ with one’s essence; but I am saying that duende enriches one’s essence.

I should not fret over character. Character implies depth, therefore instead of superficially grooming my character I should find my rhythm within the folds of the  discordant enchantments of Life, and I should flow in spasmodic waves; or dance with freakish grace; or sing with a strident urgency; or simply move from within to without and back again. My character will appear, and evolve, and disappear, and mature, and reappear, and ultimately show itself for what it truly is when I no longer have a say; (as if I ever did). I should not fret over character.

I want to spend some time now considering the ‘dark sounds’ that are necessary for duende. Perhaps these dark sounds are the wellspring of duende, but (as previously stated) these dark sounds are not the sole ingredient of duende. I believe when we are visited by these dark sounds one has a tendency to focus on a narrow range or small cross section of their entirety. I believe we immediately see those parts that we can define as sadness or melancholia, and I believe that many of us tend to get stuck in this mire, flail about for a time thinking since we can define this, we can control it; we think we can fix it. Duende is not something to be fixed, nor is sadness or melancholia; and we soon find that to work on fixing this one part is insufficient. I believe if we make progress in this regard – if we attack this unhappiness with modern methods, and if a certain amount of this gloom appears to lift – one will be left feeling false; one will have a vacancy about them that may be more functionally amenable, but this ‘progress’ will also erase an opportunity. Duende must reverberate. Duende must be allowed to flow and dance and sing freely across the entire breadth and depth of its darkness. Duende must be felt, and not understood; and I (within this lack of understanding – the aforementioned folds of Life) must let it carry me along until we (these dark sounds and I) reach an inevitable and inexplicable intertwining of Dark and Light and my personal essence. I believe it is this tangled network that will spark a moment of clarity that in turn will inspire art.  I believe duende is an opportunity.

I listen to sad songs. I have a playlist labeled ‘Sad’ that is made up of (so far) 91 songs; that is 6 hours and 18 minutes of uplifting sorrow. I go to this playlist typically about once a week and listen for an hour or two. Australian musician and songwriter Nick Cave has this to say about sadness, duende, and music:

“Sadness or duende needs space to breathe. Melancholy hates haste and floats in silence. It must be handled with care … All love songs must contain duende. For the love song is never truly happy. It must first embrace the potential for pain. Those songs that speak of love without having within in their lines an ache or a sigh are not love songs at all… and are not to be trusted. These songs deny us our humanness… and the air waves are littered with them. The love song must resonate with the susurration of sorrow, the tintinnabulation of grief. The writer who refuses to explore the darker regions of the heart will never be able to write convincingly about the wonder, the magic and the joy of love for just as goodness cannot be trusted unless it has breathed the same air as evil, so within the fabric of the love song, within its melody, its lyric, one must sense an acknowledgment of its capacity for suffering.”

For me, all music should be about Love; be it Love of Life, or the Love of Beauty, or the Love of God or Spirituality, or the Love of Family and Friends, or the Love of Music and (other) Art, or the Love of Truth, or even the Love of Good Food or a Cold Beer. Music as Art is a reflective reverberation that allows one to feel otherwise inexpressible depths. Music as Art is an aching and a longing for a transcendental understanding of the essence of oneself and the essence of surrounding unknowns and realities; and yes – even a Cold Beer has a transcendental essence. Music (for me) is a trigger that takes me to these places beyond words.

I know sad people who have a difficult time moving past their sadness; and because of this they are also unhappy. Sadness does not have to lead one to unhappiness. I believe that sadness – ‘dark sounds’ – can carry one beyond unhappiness. I believe that melancholia can contribute to one’s search for Truth, Wisdom, and Happiness. This is not to say that one should live in perpetual despondency, or intentionally subject their self or others to an outlook of wretched despair; but when a sadness finds us, I do believe we should be open to it and take it where it goes. I have often found it to lead from its source (whether that fountainhead be a trickle or a torrent) to a placid clarity of artfully creative purpose and meaning. And then I have just as often found this luminous serenity tossed and turned and channeled back into a flood of emotional turmoil. And then, I begin again.

And this is why I listen to sad music.

I face the ‘unknown’ daily. Diagnosed (19 years ago) with Meniere’s Disease I do not know from day-to-day how bad the roaring in my head will be. And although it is an intimate companion, always there, (even in my dreams), I do not know from moment-to-moment how bad it really is. I do not know how well (or how poorly) I am compensating for the tinnitus and associated symptoms because (by definition) the cause of Meniere’s is unknown and the severity of (many of) the fluctuating symptoms is unmeasurable. I don’t know if I am a crybaby or a superhero. I don’t know where I stand compared to other Meniere’s sufferers; or to others with any debilitating disease and/or disability; or to others who actively acknowledge and thoughtfully consider the adversity inherent in our daily existence.  I simply don’t know.

I began this week interpreting my symptoms as more oppressive than usual; but I really don’t know.

Were my symptoms truly worse? Or was I merely more attentive? I don’t know.

Do other hardships distract me from my symptoms? Or bring them into sharper focus? I don’t know.

And what about good fortune? Is (lower-case) happiness a distraction? A salve? Or an irritant? I don’t know.

I’m not being difficult. I have made an effort to analyze how varying situational circumstances may conspire to soothe or exacerbate, but either there are too many impactful variables interacting collectively, and/or the symptoms are truly random. Regardless, I still don’t know.

Today (Wednesday) I have made a connection from this individual dot of empirical existence and it’s personal unknowns, to other dots representing other (seemingly more significant) unknowns – dots representing love, and spirituality, and philosophy, and Truth, and Wisdom, and Dark, and Light, and death. And although I am able to reach out and pull these other dots close, I do not know if I am seeing them as they really are. I don’t know if I am a fool or a wise man. I don’t know where I stand compared to others who claim a spirituality; or to others who profess their love; or to others who actively acknowledge and thoughtfully consider the Light inherent in our daily existence.

I would like to argue that personal unknowns are equally as significant as these ominous, looming unknowns based on the rationale that though some things may seem so, nothing is larger-than-life.

If there is an afterlife, it is the substance of this Life that is important.

If there is no afterlife, it is the substance of this Life that is important.

If I lived a previous Life on this (or any) plane of existence (or not), it is the substance of this Life that is important.

In my mind, the substance of this Life includes passion, reason, compassion, responsibility, hard work, exoteric goodness, learning and growth, complexity, depth, and (as it comes) an inner peace.

In my mind, the substance of this Life does not include divisive dogma, ritualistic comfort, or bureaucratic indoctrination.

When one faces the unknown daily, one is more aware of the substance of this Life, and one comes closer to an active understanding of Love, and Spirituality, and Philosophy, and Truth, and Wisdom, and Dark, and Light, and Death.

When one faces the events in their day with certainty, believing they have control, one distances their self from the substance of this Life.

My personal unknowns give me an opportunity to look into the eyes of Life and recognize the advantage of unadulterated equal footing.

My personal unknowns give me an opportunity to look into the teeth of Life and sense the reality that nothing is larger-than-Life.

My personal unknowns (on good days) meld with other looming unknowns creating a symbiotic relationship that provides a depth of interdependent nourishment in an ocean of (unknown) possibility.

My personal unknowns (on not-so-good days) create a muddy pool of slop and filth in which I can wallow.

My personal unknowns (on bad days) hide in fear allowing me to pretend that my wading pool holds the restorative energy of a natural hot spring; or a mineral bath; or the fountain of youth.

Every now and then, a wading pool is nice; and in some circumstance, perhaps necessary. But my wading pool will never lead me to the depths of interdependent nourishment created by a synergistic fusion of unknowns. This week, my muddy pool of slop and filth did exactly that.

And for that, I am actively grateful.

For me, the questions are more important than the answers; but I can understand how for some (perhaps most?) the answer trumps the question. I believe though, that for many this latter perspective may encourage a passive acceptance of easy and/or forceful answers, discouraging additional, deeper questioning.

“Be patient toward all that is unsolved in your heart and try to love the questions themselves, like locked rooms and like books that are now written in a very foreign tongue. Do not now seek the answers, which cannot be given you because you would not be able to live them. And the point is, to live everything. Live the questions now. Perhaps you will then gradually, without noticing it, live along some distant day into the answer.
     –Rainer Maria Wilke;  German Poet/Writer; 1876 -1926. 

Last week I said “If there were no questions, there would be no opportunity for peace; or goodness; or compassion; or responsibility; or hard work. If there were no questions, I could not account for the imperfections of my Humanity.” I will never attain perfection in any form in this Life, but because there are no absolutes, and because there is no certainty, there must be a process of thoughtful questioning, gentle (or not-so-gentle) probing, and thorough analysis that will aid in understanding one’s imperfections; a process that will push or pull us ever-closer to an understanding of peace (through turmoil), goodness (through selfishness), compassion (through suffering), responsibility (through complacency), hard work (through discretionary quiescence), and Truth and Wisdom (through our Humanity).

This week I have stumbled into more than one circumstance in which I was expected to react with a passive acceptance. When I attempted to question the status quo I was met with disbelieving condescension and (in one case) blatant disgust over my attempt to understand. These were organizations (represented by individuals) that apparently believed they had found perfection. 

This week I am reading ‘The Accidental Universe’ by Alan Lightman; a collection of essays on the “many universes within our one universe.” In his essay on ‘The Symmetrical Universe’ he points out that nature’s affinity with symmetry “is a result of economy and mathematics,” whereas our human affinity with symmetry is a result “of psychology and aesthetics.” He goes on to say (attributing this to art historian, Ernst Gombrich) “that although human beings have a deep psychological attraction to order, perfect order in art is uninteresting” and (2 pages later) that “slight asymmetries announce themselves only against the background of symmetry.” I would apply this to this week’s written thought by altering the last quote to read ‘imperfections announce themselves only against the background of the possibility of Perfection,’ and interpret the previous quote to confirm that Perfection in any form will quickly become boring. Questions are not boring. Questions substantiate the impossibility of Perfection. Questions are dynamic. Questions are necessary. Questions should not be dismissed. And if you have no questions, find some.

I believe this to be a good spot in which to insert the following from the post ‘A Fool for Happiness‘ written in December 2012:

Yea, though I walk through the Valley of the Shadow of Fools
I will fear no folly; for thou art fools with me.
Thy nod and thy laugh, they comfort me.
We preparest a stable disparity in the presence of mass obedience.
They disjoint our heads with feckless toil; yet my thoughts runneth over.

Surely I shall follow Wisdom and Truth all the days of my life,
and I will seek the house of Happiness forever.

At this time and place in this Life, I do feel the Fool. I stumble daily, (some days hourly), but there is some sad comfort in that (acknowledged or not) ‘thou art fools with me.’

It has been a difficult week; one in which the question ‘Why?’ has created considerable sadness, confusion, hesitancy, and some portentous unease. It has been a week in which the question ‘Why?’ has overshadowed all other thoughts and considerations. It has been a week in which the question ‘Why?’ has wrenched my Humanity from the comforts of its routine affectation and demanded an accounting of its spiritual and emotional goodness.

One ‘Why’ leads to another; and another; and another… In this Life – in this world – we will not find an ultimate answer; this is as it should be. If there were no questions, there would be no need for faith. Faith is defined as ‘a belief that is not based on proof.’ Faith implies a leap – a gap – an unknown. Faith is necessary for belief, and faith requires questioning. If there were no questions, there would be no opportunity for peace; or goodness; or compassion; or responsibility; or hard work. If there were no questions, I could not account for the imperfections of my Humanity.

I have faith that this loss we’ve experienced this week will make me stronger. I have faith that this loss will bring me closer to Truth and Wisdom. I have faith that this loss will bring gains that will last Forever.

To my sister, Pam – Thank You. I Love You and I Will Miss You.