hopelesshappiness.com

Imagine 'Fear' as a living, breathing, corporeal entity. Many days, many of us are able to avert our eyes, or turn and go in a different direction, thus ignoring Fear; pushing it to the back of the mind as if it were not there. But if Fear could nod and smile in passing; or walk up and shake your hand; or sit by you at lunch; or come up from behind and sling an arm around your shoulders, laughing heartily at the joke you just made...

I imagine Fear as an androgynous male; generic; vanilla; nondescript; yet strikingly noticeable. You may imagine him or her as a personification of feelings and thoughts from within (those both close to the surface and deeper within); or you may imagine him or her as threats and challenges outside of yourself and (likely) outside of your control; or you may imagine him or her as an amalgamation of within and without. I am suggesting that you put a face to Fear and imagine him or her as a living, breathing, corporeal entity; someone you must see and interact with on a daily basis.

What are my options?

1. Avoidance - I could continue to avert my eyes and work at avoiding contact, but the ground rules say daily contact. This strategy feels like wasted energy.
2. Naked Fear - I could openly shake and tremble and proclaim my fear of Fear on bended knee with bowed head, asking for mercy. This strategy is truthfully obsequious.
3. Brave Front - I could acknowledge Fear with respect and offer sincere (but often token) resistance, feeling good about my candid approach. This strategy is socially acceptable.
4. Ignorance - I could delude myself into believing that I am protected by laws and fairness and justice and goodness and morality, and that what goes around comes around, and that everything happens for a reason. This strategy is lazy.
5. Worship - I could openly and joyously proclaim my love and adoration of all things Fear is and all things Fear does, creating and/or believing myths and stories that give me comfort in my abject servility. This strategy is an evolutionary step above Naked Fear.
6. Fight - I could fight with passion, reason, compassion, responsibility, and hard work. This strategy will at times result in anger, frustration, and even despair; but at other times may result in goodness, growth, and mutual beneficence.

The reality is that I may choose any one of these strategies to fit a circumstance, but in each decision I should ask - Cui Bono? - Who benefits from this? And it is because of this question that it helps to put a face to Fear. A relationship between myself and another living, breathing, corporeal entity is more readily constructed and deconstructed than a relationship between myself and a faceless (monstrous) concept. I believe I must interact with Fear and I must choose actions and behaviors that are most beneficial to me as an individual and to me as the whole of Humanity. (I must also remember that Fear is an element of Humanity, and as such, deserves a face.)

If it is true that all relationships are symbiotic, then as I am choosing a strategy for interacting with Fear, I need to assess the possibilities: a) one of us will benefit and one of us will be harmed; b) one of us will benefit and one of us will be relatively unaffected; or c) one of us will benefit and one of us will acquire some degree of benefit less than or equal to the other. I believe equal benefit is rare.

I do not want to destroy Fear, and as a living, breathing, corporeal entity I do not believe Fear wants to destroy me.

To analyze the six strategies listed above, I will use a spectrum of negative ten (-10) to positive ten (+10) to respectively reflect maximum harm to maximum benefit.

1. Avoidance - As a general rule, depending on circumstance, I believe the 'Avoidance' strategy has most often left me in the -3 to -5 range, while benefiting Fear to the tune of a +4 to +6.
2. Naked Fear - For me this is not a frequent strategy and if/when utilized it has been an 'extreme' circumstance or completely private (non-public) behavior. When utilized, I believe it has harmed me anywhere from -4 to -8, tempered somewhat by the truthfulness, whereas Fear has benefited in the +5 to +8 range.
3. Brave Front - With this strategy I find myself relatively unaffected (-1 to +1) in many everyday interactions, but if a circumstance continues for a more noticeable span I find myself moving steadily downward and start creating exit strategies somewhere around -4 or -5. Fear wins again, starting at +2 to +4 and gaining ground as I lose ground.
4. Ignorance - I implement this strategy so I may see myself as relatively unaffected (+1) or receiving some degree of benefit (+5), and so I may see Fear as relatively unaffected (+1 to -1) to some degree of harm (-3 to -6). However, objectivity (hindsight) tells me that these numbers are reversed.
5. Worship - The functional reality of this strategy appears to be a win - win with both myself and Fear falling into a +3 to a +9 range. I believe the specific placement on the spectrum depends largely on my degree of uncertainty, and if these skeptical feelings and thoughts are nurtured (as they should be) and continue to develop I move into the negative range of -1 to -9 (or even -10). I believe before one reaches the further limits of harm, this strategy should be disposed of, though this shedding of skin is not always easily done, and can be very painful.
6. Fight - This strategy is all over the board and will approach both extremes, though as symbiosis dictates, one or the other of us will always be in the positive ranges. There will be circumstances where both Fear and I benefit (though typically one of us moreso than the other), there will be circumstances where one of us will be relatively unaffected, and there will be circumstances where one of us will appear to be harmed. To commit to this strategy is to commit to hard work and a daily battle. I would also argue that with the objectivity of hindsight (as maintained in the opposite direction with 'Ignorance') a negative number for myself as judged in the moment could gain ground, and based on the resultant learning and growth, could move into the positive ranges.

It is obvious (at least to me) where I have landed; but as I frequently do, I began thinking and writing uncertain of where I would go. And as I frequently do, I believe I have landed in a good place.

Beauty. I could make a list. I could upload images. I could argue that beauty is in anything (and everything) of significance. I could draw to mind ugliness, and define beauty comparatively. I could find my way to beauty through emotion. I could acknowledge beauty by not seeing beauty. I could research a scientifically clinical definition of beauty, and be satisfied. I could argue that beauty is in anything (and everything) of insignificance. I could seek a spiritual understanding of beauty that transcends my physicality, and be richer for the process, but never be satisfied.

I am sure there are many, many paths to beauty. I am certain that many paths must be traveled conjointly to add depth and meaning. I know that beauty is esoteric, ineffable, and unique to each individual. I also know that, though unique, beauty encompasses such a broad spectrum there is considerable overlap and much agreement.  And, I know that (upper-case) Beauty is unknowable.

Herein lies the beauty of beauty. When I consider other desirable characteristics and positive attributes (such as compassion, health, wisdom, truth, inner peace, reason, hard work, exoteric goodness, spirituality, and happiness) they are all riddled with beauty, but the same cannot be said (to the same degree) for any of these other traits. For example: spirituality for many is so filled with emotion that it may lack reason and include compassion or exoteric goodness only for like-minded thinkers; seeking wisdom and truth may at times suppress inner peace, or, at other (less-frequent) points, elevate it; hard work applied to any of these attributes can be under- or over-appreciated as its interpretation is potentially impacted by random (good or bad) fortune; the same could be said about exoteric goodness; one's health can also be adversely impacted by other seemingly positive or innocuous aspirations; and while happiness can (in theory) be attained by traveling any one or more of these paths, the reality of happiness remains elusive; yet beauty (I believe) can be and is acknowledged to some degree by every individual that has ever breathed on this planet. And, an appreciation of beauty can be shared across many boundaries.

(NOTE: In places both above and below I may use the terms 'characteristics' and 'attributes' interchangeably, but for purposes of this discussion characteristics refer to learned traits or aspirations that one works for, whereas attributes are more frequently naturally come by or caused more directly by an outside influence, though to sustain an attribute one must recognize and then work at their appreciation. It is the necessity of work applicable to both that allows for a give and take.)

Some may question if beauty is an attribute that one should aspire toward, and I would respond that without some natural inclination toward beauty we would be less motivated to nurture, groom, and refine our appreciation of the multi-faceted intrigue of layered beauty; so - "Yes" - we should aspire to create beauty (that does no harm) and appreciate beauty when and where we are able.

Think of beauty...

Now, feel beauty...

Now, immerse yourself in its depths, until - you... must... come... up... for... air...

When I can focus to where I truly feel I am drowning in beauty, in part it brings about a melancholia. A sadness (I believe) because one momentarily recognizes a purity in this contemplative beauty; a flickering realization of an immensity held within a single grain of essentiality. Perhaps the potency of this boundless, diminutive singular is 'the' quintessential quality we see as beauty within all other desirable characteristics and positive attributes. Because of this, beauty is more amenable to being defined by itself. Yes, spirituality is spiritual, and health is healthy, and goodness is good, and peace is peaceful, and reason is rational; but beauty is truly beautiful - and when we say this (moreso than the others) it adds depth and meaning. And though it is true that pursuit and/or an appreciation of many of these attributes can be layered (from where I sit) infinitely, as we add layers to beauty, it, more than any other, creates mystifying harmonies that lead us to a depth and complexity we often do not fully discern until we have come out of its spell; and even then this understanding is tainted by one's humanity.

Perhaps the magic is not in its seeming illusions, but in its powers of intoxication. And since this power of beauty can be found in all that is positive, perhaps that is why we are more open to a communal comprehension, and so easily overwhelmed by a glimpse of its provocative Perfection.

A few months past I referred to beauty (in the post Free-Floating Happiness) as an interpretation of Form, Contrast, and Variation. This is skirting the edges of a clinical definition so, for balance, we should also associate 'desire' with our search for and appreciation of beauty. When we factor in desire, we factor in the unpredictability of our humanity; yet, despite this unpredictability, when it comes to beauty it seems we are agreeably unpredictable. Perhaps this is because we most commonly share an intense desire for Life which inevitably includes its pain and adversity which in turn adds considerable poignancy, heightening the experience of all the desirable characteristics and positive attributes that are riddled with beauty - including beauty.

In recent months I also concluded a post (Living Happiness) with the following:

To live fully, I must live in doubt, seeking reassurance, within my humanity, so I may (on occasion) touch transcendence... ...To live in this manner is terrifyingly beautiful."

And perhaps this more than anything explains the universality of beauty - it is our desire for Life - It is a meeting place - It is powerful - And it is secretive.

Twas the night before Christmas, when all through the land

Many people were saying, it's not what we planned;

The bank bags were stuffed with obscene market share,

In hopes that the Brink's truck soon would be there;

Shareholders were nestled all snug in their beds,

While visions of dollar-signs danced in their heads;

And mamma in her 'kerchief, and I in my cap,

Had just settled down for our Christmas Eve nap,

When up in my dreams there arose such a clatter

I sank further in to see what was the matter.

I sank like a stone through hot embers and ash,

And fell in a heap on a big pile of cash.

Fierce sparks in their quest to set something aglow

Gave the lustre of hell-heat encircling this dough,

When, what to my wondering eyes should appear,

Here to lead us astray, twas an ace puppeteer.

He was pulling the strings so lively and quick,

It took me a moment to shake off his trick.

More rapid than eagles, his followers they came,

And he whistled and shouted, and called them by name;

Now, Penny's! now, Macy's! now, Nordstrom and Saks!

On, Wal Mart! on, Costco, and on, T J Maxx!

To Bed, Bath, and Beyond! to the fat outlet mall!

They'll dash away! dash away! throw cash away all!

As dry leaves that before the wild hurricane fly,

When they meet with an obstacle, they'll go ahead and buy.

So back to their houses the consumers they flew,

With a pocket full of debt, and an albatross too.

And then, with an inkling, I woke to my fate,

Financing, withdrawing, to score a rebate;

As these weeks before Christmas were churning around,

A new realization began to gain ground.

It was dressed all in sense, and logic, and reason,

But its shimmer was tarnished by greed in the season;

This song with much poise that's being sung in my head,

Wants me to believe that my old ways are dead.

My eyes -- how they opened! My nimble thoughts blurred!

A bourgeoisie hype that sustains the absurd!

Their droll little pretense all wrapped with a bow,

Deeds black as the night-gloom; words white as the snow;

Is it better to hide all my lust underneath?

Is it better to talk up my token bequeath?

Will my broad sweeping gestures disguise that I'm greedy?

Will the depth of my discourse persuade the unneedy?

Pipe dreams chubby and plump from that fiendish old elf;

That dream puppeteer - so proud of himself.

A marketing hypnotist, pulling the strings;

Casting his spell so we'll buy all his things.

He can speak not a word and let us do his work,

We'll fill all our stockings and turn with a smirk,

Accepting the fable that with each year grows,

We 'Need' all this stuff, the new toys and new clothes;

Festive Joy once-a-year doesn't seem too sincere,

But the real Santa Claus is an ace puppeteer;

A charming diviner who laughs with delight,

"HAPPY SPENDING TO ALL, AND TO ALL A GOOD-NIGHT."

I know I have submitted more than one post consisting chiefly of random thoughts. And I have submitted multiple posts that have taken sudden changes in direction, perhaps giving an impression of aimless wandering; (though I believe in most cases I eventually arrived at a consequential destination). This week I have been scattered. I believe the primary distinction between random and scattered is in one's response. For me, random can be odd and amusing whereas scattered is generally annoying and distracting. I know it's semantics but I make the distinction because this is how I have felt this week (annoyed and distracted), and I want to study these scattered thoughts that have been flitting and darting about so perhaps I can make some sense of my disquietude and find a meaningful landing-place. I hope not to overload this post with too many quotes, but that is where I will begin. Some weeks it is better to let others speak.

• "If only we'd stop trying to be happy, we could have a pretty good time." --Edith Wharton

• "Affliction comes to us, not to make us sad but sober; not to make us sorry but wise." --Henry Ward Beecher

• "One is not idle because one is absorbed. There is both visible and invisible labor. To contemplate is to toil. To think is to do." --Victor Hugo

• Below are some short passages from John Stuart Mill's essay 'On Liberty' (from the Oxford World's Classics edition published in 2008):

"If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind." (pg 21)

"And the world, to each individual, means the part of it with which he comes in contact; his party, his sect, his church, his class of society... ...He devolves upon his own world the responsibility of being in the right against the dissentient worlds of other people; and it never troubles him that mere accident has decided which of these numerous worlds is the object of his reliance, and that the same causes which make him a Churchman in London, would have made him a Buddhist or a Confucian in Peking." (pg 22 - 23)

"To call any proposition certain, while there is any one who would deny its certainty if permitted, but who is not permitted, is to assume that we ourselves, and those who agree with us, are the judges of certainty, and judges without hearing the other side." (pg 26)

"Our merely social intolerance kills no one, roots out no opinions, but induces men to disguise them, or to abstain from any active effort for their diffusion...   ...But the price paid for this sort of intellectual pacification, is the sacrifice of the entire moral courage of the human mind." (pg 37 - 38)

"However unwillingly a person who has a strong opinion may admit the possibility that his opinion may be false, he ought to be moved by the consideration that however true it may be, if it is not fully, frequently, and fearlessly discussed, it will be held as a dead dogma, not a living truth." (pg 40)

"When the mind is no longer compelled, in the same degree as at first, to exercise its vital powers on the questions which its belief presents to it, there is a progressive tendency to forget all of the belief except the formularies, or to give it a dull and torpid assent, as if accepting it on trust... ...the creed remains as it were outside the mind, encrusting and petrifying it against all other influences addressed to the higher parts of our nature; manifesting its power by not suffering any fresh and living conviction to get in, but itself doing nothing for the mind or heart, except standing sentinel over them to keep them vacant." (pg 46)

• In reviewing these passages, I don't know if I am annoyed and distracted because I have been reading Mill and recognizing the weight of his words, or if his words are hitting me harder because I am annoyed and distracted by this 'season' of ('Ho-Ho-Ho') jolly good cheer and merry-happy spending in praise of the gods of commerce and the tyranny of the majority.

• I must act to resolve my worldly concerns, learn to not be stifled by what others may think, more frequently take my heart from my pocket and pin it to my sleeve, keep reminding myself that having learned from the past I must Live in the moment for the future, and finally, I must find my rhythm and move forward.

• Anything less than 7,280,444,244 feels small and inconsequential.

• I heard on the news this morning that the town in which I live is considering an ordinance that would require all 'handicapped' signs to have a new logo depicting an 'active' forward-leaning person in a wheelchair as opposed to the 'passive' seated person currently depicted. According to the report the state of New York has already legislated this change. I have to ask - Who does this benefit? And - Couldn't we find a better way to spend our tax dollars by, for example, improving our city bus service? Or by educating drivers on the rights (or even the existence) of pedestrians? Or tackling a more significant challenge to a disabled person's self esteem - (say, under-employment)? Sometimes little problems eat up big resources.

• Whatever you do, don't think about the monkey; and don't dream that dream.

• It is often more efficient and productive to match your environment with your goal. An academic environment encourages learning; a relaxed environment encourages leisure; a masculine environment encourages bravado; a feminine environment encourages cooperation; a quiet environment encourages reflective thought; a boisterous environment encourages laughter and fun; but to find calm in chaos, or to create order from disorder, or to learn from adversity enriches one's essence and strengthens one's resolve. If it is not a regular occurrence, I believe that we should on occasion choose to swim upstream.

• Anything greater than or equal to nothing is substantial and significant.

• I cannot trust moneylenders; and I cannot trust myself to efficiently manage my financial situation. Who can I trust? I am at a loss...

• Grace is the ability to face fear, ask questions, and listen to the answers

• It is not always where you land; often it is how far you fall and what you hit. Loving support can (and for me, does) benefit at many levels, but it will never be the same as standing (steady) on my own two feet.

• 7,280,924,926...

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...