hopelesshappiness.com

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.

This week I am reading ‘The Social Conquest of Earth’ by Pulitzer Prize winning author Edward O. Wilson. I am about two-thirds of the way through this fascinating look at “gene-culture coevolution” and I am reading this partially in preparation for his most recent work ‘The Meaning of Existence’. He also wrote the fictional work ‘Anthill’ which is one of the more enjoyable novels I have read in recent years. This post is not reflective of the author or any theory / perspective held by him, but I am (below) going to quote from a segment of his book (‘The Social Conquest of Earth’) where he discusses color perception and color vocabulary. This in turn will set up an intriguing framework utilizing color vocabulary for (instead of color perception) how one perceives and connects with others; (i.e. Human Interaction). This color construct (in a unique and visually accommodating way) will support the flow of my written thought as expressed throughout this site, as well as run parallel to the original interpretive studies as reported in ‘The Social Conquest of Earth’.

“Color does not exist in nature … Visible light consists of continuously varying wavelengths, with no intrinsic color in it. Color vision is imposed on this variation by photosensitive cone cells of the retina and the connecting nerve cells of the brain … Here the wavelength information is recombined to yield signals distributed along two axes. The brain later interprets one axis as green to red and the other as blue to yellow, with yellow defined as a mixture of green and red.” (from pages 205 – 206 in ‘The Social Conquest of Earth’).

Dr. Wilson goes on to describe how color vocabularies can differ between cultures. In one “experiment performed in the 1960’s, Brent Berlin and Paul Kay tested the color concepts in native speakers of twenty languages” (page 208). “In later investigations, Berlin and Kay observed that each society uses from two to eleven basic color terms” (page 209). He goes on to explain that

“the combinations of basic color terms as a rule grow in the following hierarchical fashion:

• Languages with only two basic color terms use them to distinguish black and white.
• Languages with only three terms have words for black, white, and red.
• Languages with only four terms have words for black, white, red, and either green or yellow.
• Languages with only five terms have words for black, white, red, green, and yellow.
• Languages with only six terms have words for black, white, red, green, yellow, and blue.
• Languages with only seven terms have words for black, white, red, green, yellow, blue, and brown.
• No such precedence occurs among the remaining four basic colors, purple, orange, pink, and gray, when these have been added on top of the first seven” (pages 209 – 210).

Dr. Wilson goes on to say that “subsequent new work has confirmed the reality of the eleven basic words for color, such that those of one language can be matched with those of other languages” (page 210).

In recent weeks and days, due to current Life circumstance requiring interaction in varying social situations, I have been pondering how different individuals go about determining and then acting upon their personal preferences for direct human interaction. When I read about how color vocabularies differ by culture (as quoted above) a framework clicked into place. The remainder of this post will describe (also in hierarchical fashion) how I believe individuals evolve or flow both in a general sense of dealing with others and applicable as well to newly formed (or forming) relationships. I will start by assigning a general characteristic to each of the eleven colors:

• Individuals with only black and white interaction skills or behaviors divide the world between ‘us and them’ and interact accordingly.
• Individuals who recognize black, white, and red interaction skills or behaviors still define an ‘us and them’ but add to that an emotional component that may (depending on demeanor and circumstance) translate as passion, anger, or simple friendliness, caring, or respect.
• Individuals who recognize black, white, and red interaction skills or behaviors, and one other (green or yellow) interaction skill or behavior will add reason (green) or compassion (yellow) to their repertoire.
• Individuals who recognize black, white, red, green, and yellow interaction skills or behaviors have gained an understanding of both reason and compassion.
• Individuals who recognize black, white, red, green, yellow, and blue interaction skills or behaviors have extended their reasoned compassion to include a sense of communal responsibility.
• Individuals who recognize black, white, red, green, yellow, blue, and brown interaction skills and behavior now recognize the importance of hard work to support and enhance all interaction skills and behaviors learned to this point and moving forward.
• Individuals who extend themselves beyond this point may think in terms of purple, orange, pink, and/or gray skills or behaviors, adding (respectively but added in no particular order) exoteric goodness, learning and growth, complexity, and depth, thus strengthening all past and future interactions.

Though I use the descriptor ‘individuals’ this same hierarchy could apply to cultural traits, skills, and behaviors; specifically (at the more advanced levels) to a family unit or in a small organizational setting, and more readily (at the basic, beginning levels) to larger culturally definable groups/organizations and/or to determine the inclusion potentiality of new group members. In other words, the larger the culture, the more likely interaction behaviors will remain superficial and not advance beyond some reason, compassion, and necessary or required responsibility. Additionally, a potential new member applying (formally or otherwise) for membership to a group is tested utilizing this flow from the beginning; first by not being accepted as one of ‘us’ until expectations are met by staying a step ahead of the group – (from emotional attachment, to reason, to compassion, to responsibility, to hard work, and ideally to the additional strengths as is necessary and/or helpful). Once this evolution is accomplished, the individual may become a full-fledged member of the group; though in some cultures this may take years, and in others unless you are born into the group you may never be fully accepted.

As the additional strengths of exoteric goodness, learning and growth, complexity, and depth (represented by purple, orange, pink, and gray) are honed and sharpened these competencies will enable not only a connective calibration amongst the flow of the first seven interaction skills, but also a profundity that will create an opportunity for leadership by example or otherwise. The first seven skills (though they will never be mastered) must be understood and practiced as consistent behavior before the last four strengths can gain the potency necessary to ensure a cycle of hierarchical continuity. We can and should spend a Lifetime recognizing us and them, forming emotional attachments, practicing reason, compassion, and communal responsibility by working hard at strengthening our goodness, learning, growing, and adding productive layers of complexity and depth; and then we must begin again.

Some may argue that the first (black and white) skill should not qualify as a skill, but should be regarded as a jumping off point from which we learn the remaining skills. I would argue that there are some who may only (depending upon circumstance) recognize an ‘us’, and I would further argue that this is dangerous and any individual or group that does recognize and acknowledge a ‘them’ is indeed practicing a mental or visual interaction skill. If not extended to a (red) emotional investment, the black and white individual will likely exhibit apathy and lethargy, but it is still a start, with potential for progress.

Without (green) reason and/or (yellow) compassion, the (red) emotional component will be difficult to control, potentially characterized by excessive anger (we’re gonna fight), excessive emotional involvement, and perhaps some narcissistic tendencies reinforced by temper tantrums. Some of these tendencies may also be traits of one (or a group) who is compassionate but lacks the stability of rational thought. And then there will be those who understand the importance of logic and reason, but lack compassion thus becoming emotionally stunted as typified by the ‘Star Trek’ character Dr. Spock.

I believe once an individual (or a group) reaches the stage of reasoned compassion (green and yellow) they likely cannot help but to see ahead to the value of communal responsibility. I also believe that some may not like this view and will turn back to (green) reason alone thus creating a color blindness along the (yellow-blue) compassion-communal responsibility spectrum. I also believe that these individuals (or groups) may still advance beyond this spectrum without noticing (due to the learned color blindness), moving on to hard work and additional strengths as necessary or helpful to advance agendas. This blind spot would explain (in individuals and/or groups) politics (defined as seeking power and control), sociopathy, excessive narcissism, excessive bureaucracy, tyranny, and any number of other traits reflecting a lack of compassion and an ignorance of communal responsibility.

Once an individual (or group) begins a practice of communal responsibility, or even states an intention to do so, the necessity of hard work becomes obvious and (if the stated intentions are sincere) unavoidable. This (in theory) should encourage a work ethic throughout the flow of interaction skills and behaviors, and with each cycle hard work should spark and reinforce the energy output needed for a consistent and continuous strengthening of Human Interaction, both as an individual and as an active member of any group.

And now we are back to the additional strengths of (purple, orange, pink, and gray) exoteric goodness, learning and growth, complexity, and depth, which should again lead us back to the beginning of the hierarchical flow of Human Interaction skills and behaviors. This cycle should be perpetuated by the individual or group, but will also kick-start itself whenever one (individual or group) is introduced to a new social situation, which is a common occurrence for many. If uncommon, one should seek out new Human Interaction (if for no other reason) to practice and strengthen these personal skills and behaviors as they will also benefit one’s personal search for Truth, Wisdom, and Happiness.

Happy Coloring!

Within any organization, (including the organization of 'me' as an individual being), its essence is hard to find but typically hides in, around, between, and behind the varying degrees of its inner peace, exoteric goodness, compassion, communal responsibility, and work ethic; while its humanity is typically understood (though not always openly acknowledged) by the member or members of the organization through its 'in your psyche' everyday actions and behaviors. To be human is lazy. To be essential requires principled perseverance and sweat.

I believe in this context that 'essence' must be defined as that which gently and productively advances organizational learning, growth, and (ultimately) survival; and 'humanity' must be defined as that which does what it sees as necessary (including artful manipulation and brute force) to encourage cooperation that will in turn advance organizational agendas. The essence of any organization (be it one individual being or the entirety of our global community) is played out through its humanity and because this is so, some claim that they (humanity and essence) are one and the same. Others delusionally maintain a strict separation between the two, believing that passive thoughts and supercilious tolerance comprise the whole of organizational essence, thus excusing organizational humanity.

It is difficult to consistently practice essential humanity, because in a sense they (humanity and essence) are opposed. Organizational humanity pulls us toward an easy comfort, while organizational essence drives us toward reasoned confrontation. Organizational humanity seeks power and control, and denies uncertainty, while organizational essence practices compassion and goodness, and embraces uncertainty. Organizational humanity dresses up or conceals the pain of imperfection, while organizational essence strips it bare and pulls it into the light for closer examination. Organizational humanity cowers in the dark and prances in the light, while organizational essence respectfully explores the dark, dances with the shadows in the light, and listens to learn from both Dark and Light. Opposed but not opposites, organizational humanity and organizational essence are inseparably intertwined, but without the gentle, productive, intimate coaxing of organizational essence (as defined above), organizational humanity will dominate; (this is applicable if the organization is one individual, the entirety of our global community, or points in between).

It is interesting that the word 'soul' or the word 'spirit' is seemingly synonymous with 'essence' when applied to an organization consisting of multiple individual beings, but when applied to an individual being these words suddenly become full of religious significance. Even the word 'essence' when applied to an individual can encourage a more spiritual or religious interpretation. Without casting aspersions on anyone's beliefs, I believe a more secular perspective of this concept will more likely guide us to a common ground that will have the potential to satisfy many spiritual or transcendental yearnings. After all, when we speak of the spirit or soul of a community, or of a social organization, or of a corporation, even the most devout religious adherents don't expect to meet up with the single embodiment of (for example) Time Warner Cable in heaven; yet they still embody a spirit. So why can't we simply concern ourselves with personal goodness and compassion and communal responsibility and hard work without the loaded, controversial, often adversarial excess baggage of religious doctrine and belief.

I have previously claimed (here in the post Quantum Happiness and here in the post Free-Floating Happiness) that in this world there is no such thing as an intrinsically, absolute entity. I have also alluded to this above by repeatedly referring to 'me' or any individual being as an organization. I have done so for many reasons previously stated, and also to allow for a practical differentiation between one's essence and one's humanity; ('one' referring to an individual being or any other single organization consisting of any number of individual beings). We need this practicality to clear the fog of fear from which myth forms. This is not to say (again) that there is no practical basis for myth, but once the fear is seen for what it is and acknowledged for what it does perhaps we have simplified the equation to enable a proximate empirical (as opposed to a supernatural) basis for transcendental consideration. Perhaps instead of x + y = some number greater than 100, we can agree that x + y = some number greater than 100 and less than 200; (assume the representative numbers are merely parameters and not a reflection of value). To create and define this common ground, as opposed to the current open-ended hodge-podge of infinite impossibilities, is (I believe) of great value.

(Note - 'Impossibilities' as used above may sound harsh, judgmental, and even adversarial, but there are many who would claim 'if something is conceivable, it is possible' so in a sense I am giving a respectful nod by acknowledging extremes.)

I have made this appeal for a common ground before (most notably here in The Spirit of Happiness and here in Challenging Happiness); but this week I have added organizational responsibility to the calculation by encouraging a practical and productive application of organizational essence. It is within an organization consisting of multiple individual beings where my thoughts this week began. Power, control, bureaucracy, and groupthink are reflective of organizational humanity. "To be human is lazy. To be essential requires principled perseverance and sweat."

I saw a sign in a flea market this week that showed a chicken crossing the road and the caption read, 'I wish I could just cross the road without everyone questioning my motives.' This is so true. Not only do we question motives, but we judge the chicken according to results. Why did he cross there instead of here? Why didn't he cross quicker? Why did he cross lugging all that baggage? Did he seek advice on where to cross? Is he a conformist (crossing where many chickens cross), or is he an adventurer / troublemaker? Where did his crossing get him? If his crossing only got him to the other side, why did he cross at all? It seems that chickens by nature, are very poor decision makers; though some are also very lucky; and others are not so lucky.

It would be controversial to suggest that there is no such thing as a good decision or a bad decision; or that it is all a matter of (good or bad) luck. but in a sense, that is exactly how it is. Most chickens will make a decision based on how they believe it will impact their well-being, but each chicken prioritizes differently. For some the most important factor may be financial well-being, meaning they may aggressively compete for and/or hoard their chicken feed which in turn may lead to excessive stress and a little chicken heart attack (or other stress-related disorder) impacting physical well-being; (...the sky is falling! The sky is falling!). Be it financial, physical, social, mental, societal, familial, ecological, philosophical, political, technological, (I could go on and on...), emotional, or spiritual well-being, focusing on any one over any other(s) will impact all others and may seriously compromise one or more; and who is to say in the course of a chicken's Life what will become important.

Conclusion: Making a decision is a chicken crap shoot - especially so because most chickens don't realize the likelihood that their ultimate destiny, (in fact, the best they can hope for), is to serve as a source of nourishment; or a midnight snack.

A few months back I found a $50 bill nestled in a pile of leaves at the side of a public street. Did I make a good decision to cross the road and come upon that specific pile of compost? Or was it just luck? Was it a good decision to get on my hands and knees and paw through the wet, smelly leaves in the hope of discovering more chicken feed? I'm sure passersby probably did not think so, but then if they knew my reasons, they may have become competition. What if I told you that it was my dog who decided at that moment to lead me across the road? To this day I am still asking, why did my dog cross the road? Was it only because that particular pile looked to be an attractive urination destination and he was intent on the well-being of his bladder? Or did he truly know something I did not? I can tell you that his pee has not paid since.

As I write this, it is 3am Friday morning and I am walking down the street on my way to work. A few minutes ago I caught movement from the corner of my eye and looked to see a fat opossum crossing the road toward me. He hopped up on the sidewalk about 10 feet in front of me and we journeyed companionably together for another 50 yards or so before he stopped, turned and gave me a knowing glance, (or was it a warning glance?), and waddled off into the woods on my right.

As I was writing that last sentence I looked ahead and saw another animal sitting on my side of the road. I drew near and saw that it was a black and white cat. He leisurely stood, stretched, and crossed to the other side of the road utilizing the marked crosswalk there for that purpose.

Three years ago I wrote about a video game in which a frog tries to cross a road, dodging heavy highway traffic. After re-reading that post, and considering the frog, my dog, the chicken, the cat, and the fat opossum, perhaps the message is that our ultimate well-being is not the same, (nor is it dependent upon), our immediate well-being; or put another way, one's humanity will focus on immediate well-being and prioritize accordingly, while one's essence will intuitively encourage consideration for one's transcendental well-being. My humanity is impossible to ignore, and my essence is at times difficult to find and always difficult to understand; but I believe that if I continue to listen closely, I will continue to learn and grow both personally and communally.

And I will continue to look both ways before I cross the road...

...or not.

I have been toting boxes for 8 years. It was then (8 years ago) that I was hit with a disability limiting my capabilities and stamina, thus creating a circumstance of chronic under-employment; (i.e. toting boxes). My experience has shown that if you are not physically fit, it does not matter how mentally fit you are, in the employment arena you will likely be consigned to toting boxes. In actuality, in this time, I have had a variety of jobs (most part-time due to my limitations) including customer service, quality control, human resources, administrative office, and even some supervisory / management, but in every case, I have been (for the most part) toting boxes.

We all spend a portion of our time toting boxes; there is no way around it. Some may say that toting boxes is all we do; I would argue that it doesn't have to be that way in all arenas. Even in those areas where we might feel under-utilized, I believe one can find some redeeming qualities. This is true of every job I have held in the past 8 years - each has offered some value and some challenge and reward, most usually in the human interaction aspects of the job, but also where I have been able to assist in and impact order and efficiency. And it is in the interest of order and efficiency that this week I accepted a new position - (you guessed it) - toting boxes. I will be carrying boxes from a conveyor to a delivery truck, and placing them on the truck in a predetermined order, to ensure efficient delivery. I find the thought of this new circumstance oddly comfortable. I believe this new job (toting boxes) will be satisfying in the aforementioned aspects of productivity, and rewarding in seeing a task efficiently completed; and it will avoid the (bureaucratic, political) frustration of toting boxes for the sake of toting boxes.

I don't believe any of us have ever had a paying job that did not require us to tote some boxes. For me, the difference between pre and post disability I believe is just that - the difference. I was able to make more of a difference / have more of an impact when I had no limitations. And when put in that light, it sort of makes sense; the less I can do, the less impact I will have. But I would argue that this perspective wastes valuable resources, by limiting accommodations. Anyone who is accommodated in any way (including simply being given a job opportunity despite limitations) is more likely subjected to the challenges of bureaucracy and politics, and less likely to overcome this entrenched power hierarchy; partially because the accommodatee has already overcome one challenge (their disability) to be in the job and therefore should be grateful and stay in their place. One accommodation (the simple granting of a job) should be enough - right?

No.

I believe accommodation means to 'create a circumstance encouraging one to strive toward their fullest potential, and allowing one to contribute maximal productivity' starting with choosing the best person for the job, and continuing with growth opportunities and some creative freedom within the job. I believe this definition should apply to everyone equally; not only those with a documented disability. In this sense, under-employment is not exclusive to the disabled, but a realm that encompasses all manner of arbitrary, biased, unprincipled, unreasonable inequities, and the individuals infringed upon.

I am undecided if this insight eases my pain or not. The fact remains that many disabled have tumbled from greater responsibility, challenge, and reward to a state of toting boxes, whereas many others who are under-employed have only known box-toting. But just because my pain may be greater, does not make the ethicality any different between those who have tumbled and those who have not. Unfortunately, in the employment arena, equal opportunity is not yet a reality, for many reasons.

Regardless, we can still choose to seek responsibility, challenge, and reward in other arenas including family, friends, social organizations, advocacy groups, charitable causes, personal learning / growth, and other personal hobbies and leisure activities. For many, this is enough. For some, it is merely consolation. I am finally coming around to finding it enough, by realizing that the only difference between my circumstance and that of the majority of others is the starting point. And I now realize that to feel deserving simply because of previous good or bad fortune, is a reflection of a narcissistic ego.

My circumstance in this moment is exactly what it is, and no amount of angry, bitter whining will change the moment; and I believe there are more productive ways to work toward a satisfying future. By learning from the past (i.e. I must actively accept that it is unlikely for me to find maximum satisfaction as a part-time disabled worker), actively accepting the moment, and finding other avenues for responsibility, challenge, and reward I can move ahead more peacefully, compassionately, and communally.

As always, my humanity will at times interfere, and I know I will occasionally backslide, but it is good to acknowledge the reality of the moment.