hopelesshappiness.com

I have espoused the precept 'Do No Harm' in 20 different posts throughout this site; that is more than 10% of my weekly posts. This week I have returned to and read these 20 posts and maintain that in context 'Do No Harm' is valid as an overriding principle that every individual should consider with every decision / choice made. The reality though is that in some decisions there is harm done and (I believe) typically this harm is (and/or should be) a conscious choice to inflict short-term harm for long-term gain. Following are questions that should be answered before harmful action is implemented:

1. (a) What is the long-term gain and the short-term harm, (specifically)? (b) How does the long-term gain trump the short-term harm? (c) What (specifically) is meant by long-term and short-term? and (d) Have we considered potential unintended consequences of the harm being done and their potential for further (short-term or long-term) impact?
2. Are the individuals (or is the individual) being harmed also included in the set of individuals that will reap the long-term benefit?
3. If I were the 'inflictee' instead of the 'inflictor' would I understand this decision and agree with it?
4. Would a majority of those being harmed understand this decision and agree with it?
5. Would a majority of those who would benefit understand this decision and agree with it?
6. Would a majority of the remaining world population as neutrals not impacted by this decision understand it and agree with it?
7. Would your Mom - (Dad, Grandmother, Grandfather, or other highly-influential, close, personal, ethical role-model) - understand this decision and agree with it?

I believe that after careful consideration of #1 and #2 above, if any of the remaining questions can still be answered 'No' further examination of questions 1 and 2 is required.  And ultimately, after this further analysis, if there still remains a 'No' answer for questions 3 thru 7, (possibly excepting #4), perhaps the plan for action should be restructured.

For many this process may appear cumbersome and inconvenient (particularly the analysis in #1); and granted, we cannot be expected to foresee all (butterfly effect) potentialities, but some effort must be made if we are to progress.

Additionally I acknowledge that considerable subjectivity goes into this analysis of harm, yet I maintain that we can (and should) rein in the subjectivity while optimizing objectivity. In the post Humble Happiness from September 2012 I differentiated between the subjective realms of spirituality and emotion, and the more objective realms of fact and reason. These seven questions are helping us to think through the Wisdom of harm, and to answer as objectively as possible. Ideally we would check our heavy cloaks of spirituality and emotion with the coat-check attendant and go into this experience scantily-clad in only our ability to reason through facts and argument; many people are not comfortable with this.

Above I stated that "in context 'Do No Harm' is valid as an overriding principle that every individual should consider with every decision / choice made." And the context thus far has been individual choice. I have not previously differentiated between an individual decision and a decision made and/or invoked in the name of a group. Apparently we are wired to cooperate within our group and compete against other groups; so this differentiation must be made. When I speak of groups, I refer to anything from a family unit of two to a powerful nation of millions or billions, and all manner of organizations, corporations, and bureaucracies between and beyond that can readily identify an out-group (Them) to contrast with their in-group (Us). Group decisions are often made by leaders, or committees, or other governing bodies (elected or otherwise). Many decisions made in-group are made by individuals who are given the power to do so in the name of the group. When an individual (especially an inexperienced individual) makes a decision for a group, if they have not been given instruction, training, or guidelines to follow, ego and politics can influence to create unintended harm. As a group becomes larger, the complexities intensify, and the bureaucratic result increases the potential for harm; a harm that may then become invisible to the decision maker(s).

But I digress; ...somewhat.

The issue at hand is to minimize harm, and as previously stated each individual one of us should take responsibility for doing so whether we are making a decision for our self, individually in the name of a group, or as an individual voice within a larger decision-making body. This can and should be done by asking the seven questions previously listed and objectively considering potential results. But how do we utilize these ethical guidelines within a larger group to ensure objectivity? Or in the face of two smaller groups within that larger group? The self-defeating dynamics of divisive competition within planned or expected volitional cooperation are...well...self-defeating. An obvious example is our own government in which conservatives and liberals (and a myriad of other even smaller special interests) compete to cooperate within the larger context of the government of The United States of America. For groups this large (and bureaucratic, and confused, and chaotic) emotional, ego-driven, dogmatic, bias will always trump reasoned debate and analysis. Though much more colorful and entertaining these security blankets of subjectivity must be removed before a productive examination of ethical decision-making can occur.

So what? I'm not saying anything we don't already know. Though I believe it is a fairly concise and workable matrix for individual decision, there is nothing magical in that list of seven questions to simplify the ethical decision-making within a large group. I cannot point to #5 (for example) and say this is the key question that will allow competing groups to cooperate in a larger context. It has taken me 3 painful paragraphs to say "So What?"

In this post I have encouraged individual responsibility for ethical decision-making that will minimize harm. In previous posts I have encouraged narrowing the playing field to create a common ground to aid in minimizing harm (most notably in The Spirit of Happiness), which requires considerable objectivity; (an objectivity also strongly encouraged in this post). Additionally in previous posts I have advocated for education (most notably in Global Happiness and Apprehensive Happiness) to speed the evolutionary process (which I believe at some point in future generations to be inevitable) of recognizing that the shrinking of this planet (due to technology) dictates a change from a priority of 'Us over Them' to  primary consideration for a 'Global Us'. We have made (some) progress on Racism so why can't we fast-forward past all manner of Themism? Instead of Conservatives and Liberals, why can't we be Liberatives on common ground? Why can't we recognize the Goodness preached in a large, large majority of religions and let go of the divisive dogma, intolerance, and hate of indoctrination? I could go on...

...and I may.

But for now I am seeing that to minimize harm we need:

1. Individual Responsibility for Ethical Decision-Making.
2. Objectivity.
3. Common Ground.
4. A Global Us.

We cannot have objectivity without first taking individual ethical responsibility. And we cannot find a common ground subjectively. And we will never recognize and act in accordance with a 'Global Us' until we see 'Us' (or at least visualize 'Us') together within that common ground. There are some who believe competitive groups can learn to cooperate; and these efforts are valuable because subjective thought will always create competition, and subjective thought will never (and should never) go away. But by definition these efforts to simultaneously compete and cooperate will be a struggle. Yet if we are able to learn and grow into the aforementioned shrinking planet mindset, perhaps we can eliminate some of this competitive struggle by seeing the preeminence of the Global Us, thus encouraging the ethically responsible objectivity of a common ground.

It is a nice picture.

To drink from a raindrop...
To play in a soap bubble...
To work in a shoe box...
To suffer in silk...
...and burlap...
...and silence...
To drown in a teardrop...

I was disturbed and saddened this week when I read, (in 'Moral Tribes' by Joshua Greene), of a study that showed endorsement of a policy by conservative or liberal leadership had more influence than the actual policy substance. The study participants were shown a generous welfare policy endorsed by conservative leaders, and a restrictive welfare policy endorsed by liberal leaders. Both policies created significant majority partisan support, despite the fact that in a parallel study in which there was no policy endorsement, (as would be expected) conservatives preferred the more restrictive policy and liberals preferred the more generous policy.

As I have pondered this paradoxical behavior this week though, I am considering a change of heart. This consideration was influenced this morning by an off-the-cuff remark I made to my wife. On the way to work, as I found myself climbing down from my soapbox (-a frequent occurrence-) I said, "I'm sorry; some days I get tired of myself too." (I should note that my wife is very kind and patient, and had not said a discouraging word, nor even rolled her eyes; though I was preoccupied with a safe dismount, so I could have missed an eye-roll.) But I am being truthful when I say this vigilant effort at learning and growth for a better understanding can wear on one's body and mind, and these seemingly futile efforts toward fruitful communication can wear on one's spirit.

Perhaps there is something to be said for partisanship.

Perhaps it is time to simplify and stop thinking for myself. If I can let others do my thinking for me, perhaps I will have more time for HBO; (I like HBO).

Perhaps I should switch my reading efforts exclusively to fiction, and restrict my writing efforts to grocery lists and Scrabble score pads.

Perhaps my credentials are not as impeccable as required by those 'powers that be' who set that standard for those allowed to influence. I admit I am an old, low-ranking, pedestrian bother, full of imperfections and faults, only working part-time, and with a disability, a government check, and a low credit score. I know in the eyes of many I would not make their grade, so why should I care about things (I cannot impact) and people (who don't want to be bothered)?

Though I have learned my place, perhaps I should stop shouting at passersby, and learn to live quietly within my designated restrictions and limitations.

Perhaps I should no longer work at leaving a better world for generations to come; (including my beautiful granddaughter). Perhaps instead I can live within the utopian bliss of Shangri-la with all of my friends and neighbors; (we could join hands, smile, sing sunny tunes, and be happy together).

I know you detect a touch of sarcasm, but I really do like HBO. And I am sure there are studies that show if I surround myself with cheerful, smiling people, I will find myself smiling and feeling cheerful. So Why Not? Why should I bash my brains into oblivion when I could just walk right in? And be welcomed with open arms!

Put this way, the choice appears to be a no-brainer...

We have a tendency to panic when we cannot trick ourselves into believing we are in control. Oftentimes we put on a brave front but depending on the perceived degree of turbulent helplessness, within (our minds, our guts, our hearts), there may rage a storm; which in turn may easily impact one's physical well-being. The truth is that when we perceive ourselves as having control, we are in actuality a mere heartbeat from chaos, turmoil, upheaval, distress, annoyance, discomfort, displeasure, or disturbing / troublesome points between and beyond. We don't like to acknowledge this reality.

Additionally, we don't like to be reminded of this reality in the form of others in turmoil. There are some others who appear to like the drama of upheaval, and for those individuals it is not difficult to find (and oftentimes exaggerate) the pain; but it is also not difficult to recognize these individuals and apply a grain of salt. And for those others who are in (what we perceive as) legitimate pain, we tend to apply the maxim 'time heals all wounds' and/or we shun these individuals until the maxim actually begins to work. We also appreciate those who appear to quickly bounce back from adversity (at least partially, if not mostly) because it helps us to avoid the second-hand pain. But what of those (due to inexperience, lack of opportunity, ineptitude, or actual destructive impact) who get stuck in pain and either cannot see the value of resilience or simply do not care? It is easy to advise someone not to pile pain on top of pain, yet throughout this site I have maintained that pain and adversity create learning and growth opportunities and ultimately carry us toward Truth, Wisdom, and Happiness; but as in anything, there can be too much of a good thing. The challenge is (especially with a loved-one) knowing when to let them see your pain as a result of their pain; and this is often accomplished by exhibiting frustration or even anger. Verbal concern, proximate empathy, and perceptive compassion are all necessary, appropriate, and helpful - to a point; but there will come a point when (I believe) one must choose to either 1) push, 2) walk away, or 3) indulge from a distance, so as not to also become mired in the muck and slop of another's despair. When it comes to anyone (but especially my family), I am not a coddler, and I find it very difficult to create distance by walking away or becoming a bystander; (pain should not become a spectator sport). But I also find that I often tend to push too hard, too soon.

I am not going to waste words on defending this predilection toward high expectations and (what may appear to some as) lack of patience. I believe an active awareness will assist me in softening my hard edges, quieting my quick tongue, listening for understanding, and openly acknowledging my own many mistakes and imperfections. Reminders such as this written thought help me to be actively aware, which has really been (as I look back) the main reason for these past three-and-a-half years of weekly ramblings. And I think in this (roundabout) way I have discovered what I am really thinking about this week - the value of consistent, disciplined thought, leading to learning and growth, as it applies to my daily existence.

• Some weeks I write to stay sane; (and that is not a large exaggeration).
• Some weeks I write to express frustration, learn from it, and move on.
• Some weeks I write to allay fear.
• Some weeks I write in response to another's thoughts; (most typically as I've absorbed them in their writing).
• Some weeks I write to organize my thoughts on a particular topic or concept.
• Some weeks I write to discover new or unacknowledged thoughts.
• Occasionally, I write for fun.
• Some weeks I write in circles.
• Some weeks I write to inhibit impulsive action.
• Some weeks I have, (especially at the beginning), written to teach; which is how I learned that I am both teacher and pupil.
• Some weeks I begin writing simply to maintain the discipline.
• And most weeks I write to maintain a sense of control.

...which is where I began; but this week I am not going to chase my tail.

(NOTE: I had a similar train of thought to the 'bullets' above in this post from last September.)

No matter the specificities surrounding my chosen (or accidental) thought for the week, after 190+ posts, the overriding reason has become (as already stated) "the value of consistent, disciplined thought, leading to learning and growth, as it applies to my daily existence." Which leads me back to, (though I promised no circles), the desire to help others see the value in objective consideration of subjective experience.

My method for considering personal experience as objectively as I am able, is to translate thoughts and feelings into the written word. This act of writing (for me) clarifies the emotion, without removing it. In a sense it adds a level of rationality allowing me to see my feelings from above and still feel them from within. Unfortunately, or perhaps fortunately, this method lags behind real time, meaning that 'in the moment' emotion often drives action or reaction. This is unfortunate because as rationality catches up I may discover that my behavior was arbitrarily improper. Yet this is also fortunate because it is honest and I believe it forces me to better evaluate and learn from the experience.

Not everyone writes; but perhaps everyone should. In this moment I cannot think of another medium that would come close to the advantages I have found in disciplined writing... but let me think...

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

I see that a case could be made that any creative expression would allow one to translate thought and feelings through an assortment of innovative or inspirational endeavors. These could include literature, painting, drawing, sculpting, theatre or film, music, dance, photography, culinary arts, and many craft occupations or hobbies. In addition to participation and/or performance, some may say that an intensive study of these arts, or various humanities, would help one to focus and organize thoughts and feelings. And from there I suppose that we could allow that creative expression is possible in any discipline one might find, say in a listing of degree programs or even course offerings at any major university. And from there it is a short jump to claiming that immersion in an organization and/or a (perceived) 'good' cause is adequate expression of one's thoughts and feelings. And where to next? Perhaps devotion to a charismatic leader? Or a sports team? Or a computer game? Or a television show? I think we have crossed a line somewhere in this progression, but where?

Where is it an expression of consistent, disciplined thought that helps us to evaluate and learn? And where does it become a vehicle for the purpose of distracting us from pain and adversity?

If one is able to operate a remote control, one is able to think. And if one is able to think, with disciplined effort, one is able to organize thoughts. The challenge becomes remembering previously constructed thought formations, and then re-evaluating and re-interpreting them.

In this moment I cannot think of another medium that would come close to the advantages I have found in disciplined writing.

(Yeah, I know... ...but it was only a small circle.)

Today is Friday. Typically, by now I am in the 'revision/fine-tuning' stage of my weekly post. This week has been calm, which is appropriate considering last week's post, and which may help to explain the attendant dearth of written thought. This week I finished one work of fiction ('The Bone Clocks' by David Mitchell), and I am working on two books of nonfiction; one with the word "Santa" in the title, and the other with the word "Zombies" in the title, and both titles are questions - ('Does Santa Exist?' by Eric Kaplan, and 'Do Zombies Dream of Undead Sheep?' by Timothy Verstynen and Bradley Voytek). In the midst of pondering Santa Claus and the Zombies, I also worked at learning the game of Go, which I believe added to the relative tranquility of my week.

If you are not familiar with it, or have never played the game of Go, I strongly encourage (at the least) an examination of its history, rules, surrounding commentary, and impact. I have read (in multiple sources) that Go is the oldest known board game still being consistently played, with age estimates ranging between 2,500 and 4,000 years. It is often compared with Backgammon and Chess as seen in the first (unattributed) quote below. This quote combined with the following three (for me) impart a relevant feel for the game:

"Backgammon is a game where man battles fate. Chess is a game where man battles man. Go is a game where man battles himself."

"In Chess you start with everything you have on the board. In Go you start from nothing and build." ---Tim Klinger, quoted in The New York Times, July 29, 1997.

"The developed structures at each point in the game are the past, and the possibilities existing in that situation are the future. Together they constitute the present. Properly understanding the past and future in this sense is the essence of good timing." ---W. Cobb

"Success at Go requires the tactic of the soldier, the exactness of the mathematician, the imagination of the artist, the inspiration of the poet, the calm of the philosopher, and the greatest intelligence." ---Zhang Yunqi, Weiqi de faxian (Discovering weiqi), Beijing, Internal document of the Chinese Weiqi Institute 1991, p. 2.

When I bought this game I could not generate curiosity or interest within my circle of potential opponents. So this week I devised a solitaire version that incorporated an element of luck (using two die) that is not present (nor should be) in traditional Go, but quite gracefully serves its purpose as a learning tool by allowing for some unpredictability in each successive individual play. Very simply, black plays first (as in traditional Go) but before playing black rolls a single (6-sided) die to determine where it may play. Looking at the board as the black player would see it, the board is mentally/visually divided into six areas: four quadrants, a bottom half, and a top half. Moving left to right and bottom to top, the lower left quadrant is 1; the lower right quadrant is 2; the upper left quadrant is 3; the upper right quadrant is 4; the bottom half is 5; and the top half is 6. The die roll should be left as it lands to signify the area black may play in. This area includes the 10th (or border) lines that enclose the area. Before white plays, the same process is followed, except the areas are numbered according to white's seated perspective; (so, for example, if both players show a 1 on their respective die, they are not paying in the same quadrant - they are each playing in opposite corner quadrants).  In each successive turn in this version black and white may decide to roll the die or not; if the die is not rolled, the allowable play area remains the same as in the previous turn and as signified by the face-up die. The die roll is NOT considered a player's turn. The player must play in the designated area but does so immediately, thus maintaining the integrity of balanced play. As a game progresses a player may roll the die a 2nd (or as necessary 3rd, 4th, 5th...) time IF AND ONLY IF that specific designated (by-the-roll-of-the-die) area is in endgame cleanup (i.e. 100 percent undisputed dame and territorial ownership), yet there are other areas  that must still be played out to determine any territorial ownership. Die roll is suspended and players may use the entire board once endgame cleanup (i.e. 100 percent undisputed dame and territorial ownership) is reached in 3 of the 4 quadrants. These last two rules disallow forced blunders and maintain traditional Go rules. (Please forgive any ignorance, naivete, or butchered terminology; I am still learning.)

This solitaire version worked very well for me (at least) partially because, in the spirit of the game, on each successive turn, I looked forward to possibility with an emphasis on my opponent's next move, as I knew my opponent would show me that same respect. Additionally, by me sitting at the side of the board (I believe) it is helping me to see the energy of the entire board, the unspoken conative commerce being conducted between the players, and the dynamics of the all-inclusive bigger picture - as it is meant to be.

I have played one game. I made many mistakes. I learned much. I was challenged. I was calmed. I am looking forward to my second game.

Walk infinite paths
to choose finite liberties;
look... Shapes so pretty.