hopelesshappiness.com

Is it more important to seek Justice, or is it more important to heed injustice? To heed is to pay close attention to, to give it its due regard, to make peace with, to respect. This thought behind forbearance is its greater potential for reason and propriety. As much as I dislike it, injustice always has been and, (I believe, at least in my lifetime), always will be an unavoidable superhighway running through, around, under, and over varying segments and factions of Humanity. So it makes some sense to try and reason with it. By definition injustice is wrong, yet in this country we defend it and we perpetuate it daily. By definition justice includes “equitable distribution of resources and participation in decision-making,” yet in this country justice has come to mean entitlement. By definition entitlement is an injudicious assumption. By our definition equity is rhetorical bombast.

So if I respect injustice I am excusing it, I am giving in, I am adding to its credibility. But to seek Justice is perceived as scorn, rejection, or disregard by the proponents of injustice, and I am perceived as not taking its proponents seriously. And because it is injustice and because on some level to some degree its proponents know it is wrong, to add my disdain onto that is to add fuel to their fire creating further division. Today this is the nature of our country's politics where one side is justified in their mushrooming injustice and the other side is okay maintaining status quo by not walking their talk. And until someone or some faction or some thing comes to enough power and is not afraid to see actual Justice through, we will continue to be divided, and we will continue to spew word vomit that defends and/or perpetuates.

Back to my original question. If I seek Justice I am widening the divide and encouraging injustice. If I heed injustice I am justifying and substantiating and maintaining. So instead of working together for justice, rising above our natural tendencies toward power and division, almost all of us have accepted and many of us have embraced an inevitability of injustice and we temper the disappointment by recharacterizing justice as entitlement, giving us a self-righteous path forward.

Regarding this interplay between justice and injustice, my most egregious mistake is thinking I can find justice. If I were able to heed personal injustice AND somehow seek and make inroads toward more widespread, equitable justice for all, (that sounds familiar), then perhaps I would be less inclined to pretend that entitlement is justice. To do this, I must first understand the difference between entitlement and justice.

Entitlement:

1. If i have good things come my way, i deserve them.
2. If you have good things come your way, you are lucky.
3. If I have bad things come my way, it is due to circumstance beyond my control.
4. If you have bad things come your way, you made your bed - and you deserve your punishment.

Interesting to note here that in this country our system of justice in practice, is and always has been a system of entitlement, applying #3 to favored factions and #4 to those not like us.

A better path toward Justice:

1. If we have good things come our way, we consider ourselves lucky and we share the wealth.
2. If we have bad things come our way, we listen closely, and we learn to better influence circumstance.

There is a huge difference between ‘I' and ‘we’. ‘I’ has considerable difficulty contextualizing ‘we’ whereas (in theory) ‘we’ intuitively understands that ‘I’ is the same as ‘we’. Unfortunately, we are not the theoretical ‘we’ - we are a bunch of human ‘I's’ pretending to be a ‘we’.

Seeking personal justice will invariably lead me to entitlement and that will invariably detract from seeking widespread, equitable justice for all so I must consciously and actively separate the two by realizing that because I am human I will forever struggle to put ‘we’ before ‘I’. And now I am back to finding someone or some faction or some thing to take power and lead us toward Justice. But today's political and economic facts will maintain entitlement and today's power will not let go. I previously said my most egregious mistake is thinking I can find justice. I should qualify that by saying my most egregious mistake is thinking I can find personal justice.

I learn and I think and I write to invoke magic; to transform reality from its immensity into a malleable, manageable handful. I expend effort to untangle knots and to conjure mistakes that add meaning and definition to my reality. When I am lazy, (which is more often than is justified), I call upon pretense and bureaucracy and convention and certainty and Netflix to make reality disappear. When I am discouraged, I summon darkness for additional contrast so I am better able to see a light. When I am actively hopeful, I cast heavy shadows to keep me grounded. When I am angry, I ask sadness and reason to temper that anger so my reality does not morph into something more monstrous. When I am smug or intolerant, I unmask my insolence to find my insignificance cowering in the corner. When I am feeling put upon, I allow Indulgence and passion to run free, within reason. When I am afraid, I plead with discipline to balance inconsequence and impertinence. When I am in agreement, I invite uncertainty to ask questions. When I am sad, I listen. When I am lost I look to Beauty, Truth, and Wisdom to lead me back; though Wisdom is hard to keep up with and Beauty is hard to look at and Truth whispers in my ear that I am still lost.

If politics is a struggle for power, whether in the political arena, at work, at home, at play, then political proficiency is one's ability to hone in on privilege and snuggle up close; and those preoccupied with task proficiency are left shivering in the hinterlands. I used to do okay focusing on task proficiency but because (I believe) in recent decades political proficiency has overtaken task proficiency as the greater influence and because I now work for a very large organization, (more than 20,000 employees where I believe it has always been politics), I am cold. I am a retirement age senior who would like to not retire but if I cannot find a place that prioritizes task proficiency over political proficiency (or at least allows me to do so beyond a prescribed point), I may have to retire to come in from the cold.

I understand I could warm up at work if my priorities were reversed. But if I become part of the more and more of us who renounce task responsibility in favor of warmth and comfort, who will be left to do the work? I want to do the work! Yet if I am not politically proficient, I am not allowed to do the work. And as a senior, (looked on by many as used-up), even when I do warm up to power, I am still not fairly compensated for my task proficiency. Power is cold and brittle. Yet we still want a cuddle. Why?

Perhaps it is the heated fervor that is mistaken for kindled brilliance. Perhaps it is the shadowed fire that fools me, drawing me into its proximity. Perhaps it is the pyrotechnics that create an illusion of inflamed wisdom. Nonetheless, the dark, innermost core of power remains cold and brittle.

I am angry.

There are people in this world, and I sometimes forget that I am one of them. Where there are egos, without even trying there is pretense and selfishness, and from there a mere shuffle-slide-smirk to greed. Add to that conscious effort toward judgment, authority, control and add to that any sort of consensus and we have created an inescapable yet untenable circumstance for those outside the circle of tolerance. To survive, those on the outside must on occasion step inside the circle, and to do that they must put forth further conscious effort toward more pretense thus further justifying the circle’s smug morality. In addition, those who essentially reside within the circle of tolerance must also consistently put forth effort toward more and more pretense to maintain their residency, thus again further perpetuating and justifying the circle’s smug morality. I used to believe that I could encourage more change for Good from within the circle but I have determined that the inner circle (where the drivers live) is impenetrable thanks largely to the surrounding consensus that is pretense. And as long as the drivers have the means to drive, (wealth and power), the circumstance will remain as is.

There are people in this world, and I sometimes forget that I am one of them. Back to this. Though I would like to believe that my efforts are more altruistic, I must constantly question this because my methods will always be egoistic. I am reminded of this when I find myself angry. Anger is a conceit that comes from and leads to judgment and a desire for authority and control. Authority and control require overt pretense and a smug morality. So I find myself with pretense and a smug morality, but no consensus. To change circumstance, (or for that matter to maintain circumstance), requires some sort of consensus.

1. Ego - Selfishness - Belief - Pretense - Judgment - Authority - Control - Pretense - Smug Morality - Consensus - Comfort - Selfishness…
2. Ego - Selfishness - Belief - Pretense - Judgment - Authority - Control - Pretense - Smug Morality - No Consensus - Anger…
3. Ego - Anger - Judgment - Authority - Control - Pretense - Smug Morality - No Consensus - Anger…
4. Ego - Anger - Sadness - Judgment - Authority - Control - Pretense - Consensus - Compassion - Change - Comfort - Disappointment - Anger - Sadness…
5. Ego - Anger - Sadness - Judgment - Pretense - No Consensus - Anger - Sadness - Despair - Sadness…
6. Ego - Greed - Pretense - Judgment - Authority - Control - Pretense - Smug Morality - Consensus - Comfort - Greed…
7. Ego - Greed - Pretense - Wealth and Power - Judgment - Authority - Control - Pretense - Smug Morality - Consensus - Comfort - Greed…

Of course, on every track ego is a given and there will always be selfishness, but selfishness can be managed with benevolent belief.

Greed is a choice.

When selfishness is not managed, when selfishness overtakes - overrides - overpowers - exceeds belief, selfishness and belief fuse and become greed.

Capitalism encourages greed and discourages any sort of benevolent belief.

Comfort also hinders benevolent belief.

Sadness tempers judgment, authority, control, conscious pretense, and self-righteousness.

No consensus, (admittedly or not), is always followed by some measure of anger.

Change is always followed by some measure of disappointment because whatever the change, it will never be enough.

Disappointment. (admittedly or not), is always followed by some measure of anger.

I believed in the part of the American Dream that promised equal opportunity, but that belief has consistently led me onto tracks with no consensus.

Track #4 is necessary for our survival.

I keep jumping between tracks 3 and 5.

Though a time or two I have stumbled onto track #4, I am unable to consistently sway opposing consensus, thus sadness trips over ego rekindling anger and I find myself back on track 3 or 5.

When one is sailing along on track #1, then is surprised by finding their self on track #2, rather than moving on to track #3 in hopes of finding their way to track #4, I think most individuals give in and rejoin the consensus back on track #1.

Though I would like to think that each one of us begins on track #1, I know that some are born on track #6 or track #7.

There are those on track #6 or track #7 who choose to occasionally pop on to track #4 for a short visit but whereas I cannot find my way to track #4, they never fail to find their way back home.

Selfishnes, Anger, Sadness, Greed, and Consensus all serve as portals allowing an individual to jump tracks, consciously or not.

It appears to me that to survive we need a consensus, consistent Sadness.

As long as the drivers have the means to drive, (wealth and power), the circumstance will remain as is.

It is official. Of course the truth is it began nearly 65 years ago when my personally primordial cord was cut. I suppose though it is not official until it is acknowledged. Uncle. My thousand-cut quest for quietus has begun.

Sure, as a younger man, from a distance, I nodded at death giving it all due respect but I was not on speaking terms until my first heart attack at age 50. And even then our daily, (sometimes weekly), conversations were centered around the fragility of life, not so much any sort of ultimatum. So at that time with that new understanding of vulnerability, I successfully fought back, losing 60 pounds and changing my exercise and diet regimen, and I have been hospital-free for the past eight years. But now in approximately this past year it has been harder to ignore the smaller cuts; knees, hands, eyes, tremors, shoulder, ears, skin, strength, agility, stamina. I am told that for my years I am actually in quite good shape. In theory this countdown should go on for years or even for two or three more decades, and that is my intention. Nonetheless, my conversations with the pale oppressor have taken a more somber, serious turn.

In one recent conversation, I asked how much of the gradual lessening of active contribution as one enters and navigates their senior years was due to actual limitations (i.e. his countdown) and how much was due to lower expectations (i.e. our natural tendency to regard older persons as debilitated). From his own observations, he agreed that there was injustice and (sadly) significant wasted experience but he could not (or would not) speak to how it should be. When I pushed asking if this was intentional, meant to acclimate one to the idea of a nevermore, or if it was just the nature of endings, he responded saying that the planning and strategy were above his pay grade; he was merely in place to execute. I continued, rather strongly suggesting that wealth and power took advantage of him to maintain their wealth and power. I further suggested that the rich and powerful, the decision- and rule-makers, the arbitrary, pretentious, superficial, controlling, unjust, gap-widening bosses are Death incarnate. Death was offended. He adamantly denied that he was a killer acting with intention and he staunchly defended his role as functionary, merely providing a requested service.

In another conversation I asked ‘His Highborn Sallowness’ why he was so feared. I mean, he describes himself as a functionary and from where I sit he is rather unassuming; quiet, not the best conversationalist, a little drab in appearance and demeanor but comes across as efficient and economical. He replied, “there really is nothing to be afraid of.” Which led me to the question, “are you saying there is nothing after this life?” his surprising answer: “I don’t know.” Come on, man! You would think Death would know what comes next. But he again insisted that as a conduit, the existence or not of an afterlife was above his pay grade. I grasped on to his mention of conduit making the point that conduit implied a passage; something on the other end. But according to him, in the performance of his task he is only allowed to see the passing from this life. When I asked if those who passed then somehow stayed with him, he said, “no, they pass.” So I asked again, “to where?” and he once again replied, “I don’t know.” And when I asked if he was even curious, he said, “it’s not my place.” It is hard getting a straight answer from Death. Though in probably his longest and most impassioned speech to date, speaking in the third-person, he then further explained. “Death is not other-worldly. Death is of this world, here, now, everywhere, always. Anyone can learn from Death, anytime. Commune with Death and ye shall be freer in Life.”

In another conversation I asked about his relationship with pain. He claimed it was not a relationship so much as a series of flings. Yes, they saw a lot of each other but only because they traveled in the same circles. According to Death, pain is far too busy and complicated and he couldn’t (and wouldn’t want to) keep up with her if he tried. What’s more, he pointed out that in every occasion in which they are both present, once he steps in, pain immediately exits to feast upon nearby loved ones. He also expressed disdain for pain’s short attention span. He said pain was easily bored and though time often gets the credit for healing wounds, it is in actuality the fact that pain loses interest and moves on.

Yesterday I asked Death if he had aspirations beyond his role as functionary. As much as Death can, he smiled, contemplatively. After a few moments he replied, “I would like to be a teacher.” I encouraged this thought expressing appreciation for what I have learned from our conversations. He countered saying that he felt his essential assigned task overshadowed any efforts he might make to connect with someone. Opposite of many aspiring teachers, Death is afraid people take him too seriously which he has found impedes any sort of mutually beneficial learning experience. Instead of wringing hands or quaking in fear or creating stories or using him for nefarious deeds, he would much prefer that people would see him just as he is – a part of life.

In an early conversation, at the end, I got up and instinctively reached out my hand in appreciation and respect then noticeably hesitated. He waved off my embarrassment saying it was not my time and in a moment of deathly exuberance reached out with a hearty handshake and a quick double-tap to my shoulder. I had made a friend. We stood there for a few moments (as friends do) making idle chitchat and he also explained that he came to those at the end in varying ways depending on their receptivity. For some, just a light touch in the center of the forehead, for most, a two-handed, face-to-face, arm’s length gripping of the shoulders, and on occasion a good shaking was necessary to help them let go. It was also in this conversation that we came to addressing each other on a first-name basis. Mort then told me that when it was my time, when he came for me, it would be in a big-old bear hug and he would hold on to me for as long as he could until I passed. Until then, we will remain lifelong friends.