hopelesshappiness.com

Am I digging to discover something new and potentially valuable?
Am I digging to create a distraction?
Am I digging competitively?
Am I digging to confirm the illusive nature of reality?
Am I digging for beauty?
Am I digging because of, instead of, or in contempt of dreaming?
Am I digging for shelter?
Am I digging for dirt?
Am I digging so deep that I may not re emerge?
Am I digging to create a reality?
Am I digging for business?
Am I digging a grave?
Am I digging so shallow because my only utensils are a rusty pocketknife and a tin cup?
Am I digging selfishly?
Am I digging to light my way?
Am I digging to bury something personally shameful?
Am I digging for freedom?
Am I digging in hard ground?
Am I digging to create an illusion?
Am I digging to discover a long-lost and/or forgotten artifact?
Am I digging haphazardly?
Am I digging to obtain fill for an unfilled space, thus creating a perpetual need to dig?
Am I digging for the beast?
Am I digging for nothing?
Am I digging to confirm the elusive nature of reality?
Am I digging for naught?
Am I digging in the right place?
Am I digging so deep that no one can see me?
Am I digging for pleasure?
Am I digging to locate the source?
Am I digging to expose the dark?
Am I digging to hide something of personal value?
Am I digging to be evasive?
Am I digging my grave?
Am I digging so superficially that no one will notice?

How does one practice compassionate accountability? At first glance, it seems a multi-faceted contradiction - to hold one accountable for undelivered promises and inconsistent thought as encouraged Here, and to constructively help others overcome their problems and actively wish them free from suffering as encouraged Here, yet to create some pain and suffering through this demanded accounting of actions, and all the while stay true to a philosophical notion of uncertainty and doubt (especially doubting oneself) as strongly encouraged Here and Here - I ask again, "How do I practice compassionate accountability?"

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

Over this past day or two I have been back and forth on the excruciating (not much of an exaggeration) question, "Is it my place to work at holding others accountable, or is my focus and concern misplaced?" Many would say I should learn from, adapt to, and/or ignore differences of opinion and I wholeheartedly agree under many circumstances. But when I interpret actions as reflective of inconsistent thought and/or undelivered promises, and when these actions elicit a notable reaction and/or create a significant negative impact (and cannot be attributed to an evolutionary change of philosophy or a planned change of direction), in the interest of 'Communal Responsibility' I believe an accounting is called for. (And even an evolutionary or planned change must be questioned and examined to interpret agendas, motives, and potential effects.) So I am still asking - "How do I practice Compassionate Accountability?"

When I reach this point as outlined above, I must next acknowledge that I may be wrong and/or I must allow for an extended opportunity to be proven wrong. Then as I examine my interpretation I must become (dubiously) convinced of its validity, (that indeed a promise was not delivered and/or some thought or action is not consistent with professed thought or previous action), and I must compose my thoughts to effectively understand and explain my interpretation. This openness and preparation are necessary prerequisites to compassionate accountability. Once this is accomplished, I propose the following:

1. Communicate Truthfully.
2. Be Reasonable and Logical.
3. Make a Sincere Offer to Help.
4. Work Hard toward Constructive Resolution.

This method of Compassionate Accountability is as applicable to oneself as it is to others, and regardless of application, it is not complete without all four steps. Once I embark upon the first step, I am practicing accountability. If done thoughtfully, I believe the remaining steps cannot help but to incorporate compassion into the process. Each element above is scrutinized (to the best of my ability) below.

1. Communicate Truthfully - This first step may be a reaction and (if so) may include some emotion; and this is okay, to a point. First and foremost I believe (as previously stated) that I must rein in emotions until I am convinced that they are valid. I must also recognize emotions as a truthful part of my Humanity, but then once these feelings are truthfully emoted I believe one should quickly incorporate reason and logic as discussed in Step #2. I must also realize (again) that my interpretation of the truth may or may not remain as such, but regardless, it still may not be correct, proper, or right - and this applies to all individual Human truths. This last thought may discourage some (Why seek truth if it is not a Truth?), but for me it adds a dynamic (thrill-of-the-chase) vibrancy to my Humanity by cultivating and preserving uncertainty.
2. Be Reasonable and Logical - Even with emotion, reason and logic is not only possible, but required. Everyone hears a raving lunatic, but no one listens to them. Reason and logic aid me in identifying an impactful action (mine or another's) as an undelivered promise or inconsistent thought. This step is actually a reminder, as reason and logic are critical to the entire flow; and to flow smoothly, Compassionate Accountability must be reasonable and logical. It only makes sense.
3. Make a Sincere Offer to Help - Ideally, once I have reached this step, I have some feel for the nature of the disagreement which, coupled with my respectful openness to listen for understanding, may suggest possible solutions. I must remember though that it is a disagreement that has brought us (or me) to and through this process; and when two or more parties disagree (or I am in some disagreement with myself) it is possible one or more (parties or positions) may become defensive. This condition may prohibit one from encouraging specific solutions, as the defensiveness could create a perception (true or not) of heavy-handed bullying. In this circumstance, and/or if I have not developed a workable resolution, it may be best to step back and simply offer to help in any way I am able. The most important aspect of this step is for either approach (suggesting solutions or offering assistance) to come across as non-adversarial, willing, and sincere.
4. Work Hard toward Constructive Resolution - This step is the culmination. The entire process of Compassionate Accountability (I believe) revolves around 'Work' as previously encouraged Here. To be successful, there must be mutual agreement to work at resolving the undelivered promise and/or inconsistent thought, which of course means there must be agreement that a promise went unfulfilled and/or impactful actions/thoughts are inconsistent. If there is irresolvable disagreement on any point I must fall back (at least for the moment) to a position of Compassion for the Oblivious and not resort to retaliation or other exercises in futility. Depending upon the magnitude of the personal impact, I may decide to patiently watch the circumstance to determine if improvement occurs either naturally or as a result of the communications thus far. My Humanity can make this patient, non-retaliatory stance difficult. If I ultimately determine the personal impact is not of a magnitude to justify the efforts (diminishing returns...) I may elect to simply table the process and (actively) accept a longer-term position of watchful 'Compassion for the Oblivious' knowing that it is a more productive option than any vindictive or otherwise harmful or ineffective alternative. As stated before, I believe "on some level, compassion will always find a way through and have some impact, even on the oblivious."

So there it is - Like the proverbial water (or more accurately, oil and water) into wine, we are challenged to create non-adversarial conflict from antagonistic disagreement by utilizing self-assured uncertainty and pain-free suffering, resulting in a productive, beneficial, compassionate accountability.

I do like a good challenge.

YEAR that trembled and reel'd beneath me!
Your summer wind was warm enough, yet the air I breathed
         froze me,
A thick gloom fell through the sunshine and darken'd me,
Must I change my triumphant songs? said I to myself,
Must I indeed learn to chant the cold dirges of the baffled?
And sullen hymns of defeat?
* --Walt Whitman

Circumstance that trembles and reels beneath me!
I am weighted on one side by a pocketful of pennies
         and an aching, blister'd foot.
A cruel wind blusters through my head screaming unintelligible whispers of encouragement.
Am I what I think? Said I to myself.
Would it not be better to simply be what I am, or what I am not?
And if I give all of myself, will I fuse and strengthen? Or will I dissolve?
* --bryan

This week I sent the following email to various city officials. Some (unnecessary to this post) details have been edited or deleted.

DOUBLE STANDARDS AND FALSE PROMISES

On Tuesday, August 12 I arrived at the Lake bus stop at 6:15am for the 2A Connector that was supposed to arrive approximately 6:30am. It never came.

On Tuesday August 19 I arrived at the Lake bus stop at 6:20am for the 2A Connector that was supposed to arrive at approximately 6:30am. It never came.

I am starting to see a pattern.

I won't go into detail about August 12th: the multiple calls made, and the fact that on a majority of the phone calls it kicked me into a voice mail system where I received a message that the party I was trying to contact had not set up their voice mail (very clever), and the assurances that the bus was on the way (though what was on the way was the next scheduled bus), and the fact that if they would have said it was the next scheduled bus I could have crossed the street and caught one sooner, and the realization that if (heaven forbid) they would have thought ahead they could have suggested I cross the street, and the fact that they made excuses such as "a software glitch" instead of taking responsibility, and the fact that I missed breakfast so as not to be late to work once I did catch the next bus, and the fact that multiple others were late for work.

I guess I just went into some detail.

On August 19th: At 6:40am I began walking and calling, and got kicked into that devilish voice mail system 2 or 3 times before someone finally picked up. I spoke to Mr. Smith and in fairness to him I was upset, but I (without thinking) assumed they would understand my frustration and have a little empathy since it was their system that failed. I said "Where the Hell is the 2A Connector? This is two times I have tried to catch it at Lake Park and it has not shown up." Mr. Smith indignantly responded that if I continued to curse at him he would hang up. I remained frustrated but used no more language that might offend sensitivities. He made no attempt to empathize, understand, or calm me, but instead chose to fight fire with fire (which, by the way, seldom works). I told him I was now walking to Central (the transit offices) and would like to see a manager. He said she was there and he hung up on me while I was still talking.

I said the word "Hell" in the context of a commonly used phrase. Come on... Does he or do any of us hang up on friends when they use a bad word? Do we admonish people using bad language in public? Do we never get frustrated ourselves and use bad language? And perhaps most importantly, do your bus drivers kick people off the bus for bad language? As a long-time bus rider, I can answer the last question, and I think you can too. Please note that I am saying 'bad' language not 'offensive' because for the most part and in moderation 'bad' language does not offend me, and I am not asking your bus drivers to kick people off the bus for using it. But you cannot have a policy to dismiss some customers (by hanging up on me) for the use of the single word 'Hell' and not carry that policy over to other customers for the more frequent use of a variety of other creative (and at times, entertaining) profanities. I believe the truth to be that Mr. Smith simply did not want to deal with an angry customer so he hid behind that single word.

I was not swearing at Mr. Smith. I don't know Mr. Smith. And I believe to take something personally you must personally know the offending party. To me Mr. Smith was 'The City', and I was upset with the city for twice telling me I could catch a bus at a certain place, at a certain time, and not delivering on that promise.

I also have to say that I do not blame Mr. Smith; he should not become a scapegoat or be thrown under the bus. I again blame the City and its management for not properly training Customer Service Agents on how to deal with complaints. I agree that no one should be subjected to someone cussing a blue streak or threatening violence. That was not the case. I was upset and loud, but I was rational and I had a legitimate complaint. You should train your people to recognize the difference and listen more to what is being said, ignoring (as best as possible) how it is being said. His response should have been, "I understand you are frustrated and I want to help, so if you can please calmly explain the situation, we will work at resolving it." If I would have heard that, I could have skipped most of these last four paragraphs and went directly to my thoughts below.

Upon arrival at Central on August 19th I spoke to Ashley. We agreed to disagree on a couple of points, she was truthful and said that under current circumstance she could not reassure me that this same thing would not happen tomorrow morning when I will try for a third time to catch that bus, and I figured out that she does appear to care about the performance of her responsibilities and taking care of her customers. Since she does care I can only guess that the challenges keeping her from doing so revolve around people, planning, and bureaucracy.

1. You need more people and more dependable people.
2. Since the Connectors are your two key routes, you need to figure out how to ensure they have drivers. Apparently one of the problems on at least two of the eight days in this span (August 12th and August 19th) was that substitute drivers had been assigned to other routes before management knew that a Connector driver was not coming. Ashley suggested that if the starting times for the Connector routes were moved back, that would help to avoid this (software?) human glitch.
3. Bureaucratic shackles restricting Ashley from performing efficiently, must be removed. Are there budget constraints? Hiring restrictions? Hiring priorities? Does a central HR (if there is a central HR) understand the sense of urgency? Is there someone in an Ivory Tower dictating red tape? Have you ever ridden your buses? Have you ever waited an hour for a bus that was supposed to arrive in 15 minutes? Quite frankly, I DON'T CARE how you answer these questions. I just want to see my bus arrive on time tomorrow morning. If it does not, I promise you will know.

END OF EMAIL

If someone fails to deliver on a promise, they should be held accountable; and though that may involve some short-term unpleasantness or pain, I believe it ultimately does more good than harm.

If someone has a personal belief (or an organization has a policy) that they keep in a drawer and determine implementation based on an avoidance of discomfort or pain, the inconsistency will thwart learning and stunt growth.

If Happiness is (as I maintain throughout this site) one's search for Truth and Wisdom, then any effort (regardless of delivery) to encourage empathy, compassion, and a shared responsibility also has the potential to advance a communal Happiness.

If one is in a role as a representative of an organization, one should conduct themselves as such by diluting personal ego with a degree of professional pride and accomplishment appropriate to the circumstance.

There are situations that make it difficult to rise above one's Humanity. I believe there are also circumstances that may require a certain 'passion' (code for anger) to first get someone's attention before calmer discussion can take place. I know that I use this reasoning much more frequently than I should, but I believe in this circumstance - in the moment - it was necessary. Some would argue, claiming that this is not consistent with my previous encouragements for 'Compassion for the Oblivious' (Here). I disagree. As we progress from 'Compassion for the Oblivious' to a 'Communal Responsibility' I believe this sharing requires (even demands) that we hold each other accountable for undelivered promises and inconsistent thought.

As I write these words it is 6:36am on August 21st and I have been on the bus for 7 minutes. Yesterday I received two responses to my email with reassurances of investigation and resolution, and promises of follow-up.

Perhaps you 'can' fight City Hall - We will see...

This feels like a short post but it is important in that it reflects my thought process leading to a decision that will significantly change my day-to-day circumstance.

NOTES:

• Option 1: Don't Quit.
• Option 2: Quit.

If I choose Option 1:

1. I am not being truthful with others.
2. Others may be harmed by my actions; (I do not want to negatively impact others).
3. I will continue to feel under-utilized and at times accommodated (or even demeaned), possibly leading to a growing resentment. I recognize these feelings as prideful, but I'm not certain I can consistently rise above them.
4. I am not walking my talk.
5. I am playing it safe.

If I choose Option 2:

1. I am being truthful with others.
2. If there is harm it will likely be short term; to think otherwise would be prideful. (The reality is that the others that may be harmed do not include family or lifelong friends; and any potential harm is not overt or intentional, and it is not physical harm.)
3. I will likely continue to feel under-utilized because that appears to be my natural state on many paths, but resentment will be potentially curbed, at least for a time.
4. I am standing on my principles of Goodness and Productive / Efficient Creativity.
5. I may be personally harmed - (from currently simmering in the frying pan to rolled in breading and tossed into the deep fryer); or I may personally benefit - (frying pan to renewable resource); or I may continue to simmer, just in a different frying pan.

FURTHER NOTES:

• Option 2A: Flexible Notice that I am seeking another job and will leave on a mutually agreeable future date.
• Option 2B: Two Weeks Notice upon obtaining another job.

If I choose Option 2A:

• I am being completely open and truthful.

If I choose Option 2B:

• I am being selfish; or (in a kinder light) I am practicing self-preservation in order to increase the potential likelihood of becoming a renewable resource.

END OF NOTES

It is an altogether pleasant morning. Not hot enough for my liking but most would say it is agreeable. I am relaxed, my hands are trembling, there's a freight train bearing down on me, and for the moment all is good. I am smiling.

It is a good time to objectively consider all the relevant entanglements impacting a looming decision.

At first I thought the choice between Option 1 and Option 2 was a choice that would require me to compromise one of two principles; the principles being (1) Do No Harm, and (2) Promoting Productive / Efficient Creativity. After thinking it through and studying the subsequent notes above, I have discovered that the harm will be short term and any pain (if there is any pain) may actually work toward the second principle. What the choice really boils down to is me playing it safe vs. me taking principled action. When I look at it in these (objectively truthful) terms it is obvious (at least to me) which one I 'should' choose, yet my humanity demands a respect for fear of the unknown.

I have recognized and acknowledged the fear, but because these circumstances do not appear to involve any physical or long-lasting harm, I believe I will choose Option 2.

This creates another looming decision.

After again thinking it through and reviewing my 'further notes' (also above), this choice between Option 2A and Option 2B appears to be a question of 'being open and truthful' vs. 'selfishness' or (in a kinder light) 'self-preservation'. Being open and truthful wins out over selfishness, but if self-preservation truly increases a likelihood of creating a renewable resource situation (as opposed to simple short-term sustenance), then I need to consider this option. If I opt to see Option 2B as self-preservation, then I need to gauge this actual likelihood; and based on the past (which is supposed to be a good predictor of the future) I would put that likelihood at approximately 10 to 20 percent.

So now I have to judge if (even a) 20% chance of becoming a renewable resource is worth compromising my need to be open and truthful with others; and when I see it in these terms, the principle of truthfulness wins out. I will choose Option 2A.

Thank you for listening.