hopelesshappiness.com

‘To make the familiar strange’ – I learned this week that artists (such as Paul Klee) and philosophers (such as Wittgenstein) have long laid claim to this task. This is somewhat obvious in many creative arts and though I had not thought in these terms before, it also makes considerable sense in philosophy. With that said, I would like to analyze why it is so; (which may veer into some Philosophy 101, but I need to break it down).

Philosophy literally means ‘love of wisdom’. Socrates characterized one with wisdom as one who recognizes and understands the extreme limited nature of their wisdom/knowledge. Wisdom requires rational thought which requires skepticism (Question Everything!) which in turn begets uncertainty and doubt. Familiarity implies a general or common knowledge. Yet simply put, ‘we don’t know’. Through Philosophy (i.e. rational argument) we can turn knowledge (or familiarity) upside down. To say “I know” reveals a greater level of ignorance than admitting ignorance by saying “I don’t know.” To know is to not know; to not know is to know; the familiar has become strange.

Is the ‘here and now’ the reality? Or is there an ethereal realm of Forms?

Is everything stagnant? Or is everything in flux?

Are we becoming? Or are we there?

Are we a product of mind? Our mind? A Greater Mind? Or was Nietzsche on the right track?

Is it, wherever I go, there I am? Or is it, wherever I go, there I think I am? Or is it simply, I think, therefore I am?

There are many questions with no definitive answer. There are some questions that some would claim have a definitive answer. Philosophy would argue. That is what it does.

We live in a world with far too much certainty and far too many answers.

Which brings me to a note to our ‘shutdown’ government: I freely admit that I do not know with certainty what is best for me, but I firmly believe that I know better what is best for me than anyone else. Who are you to presume? – You might respond, ‘we are officials elected to make these decisions,’ and I would respond in turn, “you are men and women who have won a popularity contest based on mass media shenanigans and unethical access to excessive dollars that you are now withholding from a people whose perceived reality you will never know. You are a bunch of pompous asses corrupted by money and power.”

Last week I encouraged doubt and uncertainty in the form of thoughtful (internal and external) skepticism. I also encouraged the following, which (I believe) will flow better from a wellspring of doubt and uncertainty:

• an acknowledgment of the fluid nature of reality;
• an active openness toward change;
• and a larger educational focus on the Humanities (specifically History's greatest thinkers).

This week I want to identify and discuss three prerequisites for the (umbrella) doubt and uncertainty as described last week and see where that leads:

1. Embrace Mistakes; (especially your own).
2. If you don't know, say "I don't know."
3. Learn how to constructively question.

Embrace Mistakes: Look around and you will see there is no dearth of mistakes. Many people are very good at finding other's mistakes, many people are very good at obliviously ignoring or blithely overlooking their own mistakes, and everyone is equally good at making mistakes. The goal here should be to first acknowledge the equality, then treat other's mistakes objectively, as a learning tool, with no malicious intent or avoidable suffering; and then, most importantly, to critically examine one's own decisions and actions, in order to learn from the imperfections. I promise you that every decision I make and every action I carry out is lacking in some way. My humanity prohibits Perfection. With that said, I must also be aware of the iniquity inherent in regret. I cannot dwell on my mistakes to the point of virulent stagnation; I must learn and move on.

I Don't Know: We have a fear of looking dumb. It is sometimes hard to say "I don't know" especially in the (literal or figurative) face of authority or expertise. We can sometimes fake it, lay low, or go on the offensive, but these options simply maintain status quo and/or have the potential to aggravate existing circumstance, and, we still don't know. This week I was faced with an expert (in engine repair) and even in the midst of thinking and writing on the benefits of doubt, I found myself intimidated and pretending to know more than I did. I did not want to look dumb in this testosterone-infused environment, so I faked it. I did not have the courage to say "I don't know", and guess what? - I still don't know. Perhaps ignorance makes us feel more alone. Perhaps our aversion to admitting ignorance is an effort to conquer reality. Perhaps admitting ignorance and owning our mistakes will lead to deeper connections. And perhaps deeper connections will encourage empathic listening and progressive change.

Question Everything: This must be done with respect and an eye to progressive change. When faced with an opinion or belief worth discussing, I believe this can be accomplished more frequently by following the guidelines below:

1. Tell me what you believe.
2. Tell me why you believe it.
3. I will restate (asking questions as necessary) to confirm understanding.
4. I will Agree or Disagree; (to all or in part); (privately or publicly).

If this is an actual face-to-face or public discussion one should then reverse roles (as often as necessary) to come to some agreement, common ground, respectful disagreement, or a blending of these. I will be the first to admit that disagreements I am involved with often do not go as scripted above. It is too easy to skip straight to step #4 and stand firm; and that is as true of agreement (groupthink) as it is of disagreement. Additionally Step #3 should be voluntary; though it is a critical step, to force another to prove their listening skills reeks of indoctrination and will potentially negate any progress made through the remainder of the process. There are some who simply need to absorb information and let it simmer for maximum understanding; this is especially true if the new information contradicts a personal opinion or belief.

Finally: Last week I also differentiated between lower-case happiness (pleasure, good cheer, and/or satisfaction) and upper-case Happiness (one's search for Truth and Wisdom), and pondered the likelihood of more meaningful, worthwhile human interaction that will bring us collectively closer to Truth and Wisdom. This week I stumbled across the following thoughts from a character in Matt Bell's work of fiction 'In The House Upon The Dirt Between The Lake And The Woods':

The days were thieves, and the happier ones the worst, their distractions allowing the hours to pass unnoticed, allowing the minutes to be snatched away without knowledge of their passing ... whenever we were satisfied, then we were deluded, and in our delusions the days took from us what was ours, as wood hollowed with termites, as all iron rusted, as our clothes faded and split their machined threads, and as the home-sewn furs that replaced them grew stale and stiff."

This passage almost perfectly describes the dangers inherent in lower-case happiness. We are a people very busy with life and happiness to the extent that we too often neglect Life and Happiness. Many factors contribute to this thievery including Us vs. Them, the influence of mass media, a culture of narcissism, and a work ethic aptly characterized by a current ad slogan for a technology giant - "Work Easy / Play Hard". We seem to think we deserve EASY especially in the context of unpleasant tasks such as work. Embracing mistakes is not easy. Admitting ignorance is not easy. Asking thoughtful questions in a potentially adversarial context is not easy. Being part of 'Us' and having to deal with 'Them' is not easy. Yet all of these challenges are necessary for learning and growth. It is too bad that our thoughts and actions often choose 'Easy' over 'Happiness'.

I recently read a philosophical comparison of those competitive sports with a clock (football and basketball are examples) and those competitive sports with no clock; (baseball is an example). With a clock competitors have some opportunity to stall. Life has a clock. Lower-case happiness is a stalling strategy. Upper-case Happiness requires an internal moral and aesthetic transcendence. Think about it...

Stolen Minutes, Passing Hours - Stolen Opportunities, Passing Truths - Stolen Wisdom, Passing Lives.

Each day I work at translating my Life - my daily actions - into something meaningful and worthwhile. Many days I am confounded; most often, not as I go through my day, but at the end of the day looking back. I may have experienced pleasure, good cheer, and/or satisfaction, and I may have brought these things to others, but is lower-case happiness as described truly meaningful and worthwhile, or is it just a way to get through the day? I believe human interaction and lower-case happiness is important and necessary (for the sake of sanity if nothing else), but I also believe upper-case Happiness (one's search for Wisdom and Truth) is often given short shrift in the context of human interaction. I believe I have said this in various ways before, but this week I need to intently focus on the likelihood of meaningful, worthwhile human interaction that will bring us collectively closer to Truth and Wisdom, and not deteriorate into argument or groupthink.

I am not optimistic.

First, to attain such an open, beneficial exchange all parties must concede that opposing opinions or beliefs may be more correct or valid than one's personal opinions or beliefs. We must all be open to change and acknowledge the fluid nature of reality; and the likelihood of that happening in the near future seems slim. Which means we must start with our children and our children's children, teaching them not what to think, but how to think. What I am proposing is a monumental task. We cannot leave this entirely to our government or to the schools. Philosophy, History, Literature, and other neglected Humanities must be introduced and absorbed in the Home, and then offered and encouraged through more formal educational efforts. I could reference many opinions on this 'crisis in the humanities' and spend many words arguing and pontificating, but this week I need personal direction; (though I encourage you to research the topic and I provide the teaser below from the following article: 'The University's Crisis of Purpose' by Drew Gilpin Faust published; September 1, 2009).

"Universities are meant to be producers not just of knowledge but also of (often inconvenient) doubt. They are creative and unruly places, homes to a polyphony of voices. But at this moment in our history, universities might well ask if they have in fact done enough to raise the deep and unsettling questions necessary to any society."

I completely agree that we do not openly question or express dissent as we should. At times, it seems we have become a nation of narcissistic sheep (which should be a contradiction, but somehow is not). We are often overconfident or apathetic or conflicted. So, if this is not a challenge to be resolved in my lifetime, how do I - how can I - feel better about my daily efforts to move us closer?

For over two years a large part of my daily efforts have included this weekly blog, yet I have no regular readers at least partially because I have not discussed it with or asked for feedback from anyone, including family and friends. I have employed the 'Field of Dreams' philosophy (if I write it, they will come) with much less success than Kevin Costner. Yet I have enjoyed the anonymity (see this post) bouncing written thoughts off of myself and feeding my own doubt and uncertainties with internal dissent. It has been enlightening and helpful but I realize too that a part of the underlying reason for the continued anonymity is that I have been afraid of both rejection and acceptance and their respective impact on my confidence. I do not want to go back to having all the answers, yet I am in need of some justification. It is an interesting dilemma.

I have not missed a Saturday post in over two years and I believe that is an accomplishment in itself. If there is disagreement with my thoughts and their evolution, that is okay; in fact that is the point. I do not have all the answers and there are many weeks where I don't believe I have any answers; but I believe I am to a point where I would like more discussion and feedback.

But upon saying that, I ask myself (again), to what end? Is this my ego crying out for attention? Or is it a sincere effort to generate meaningul, worthwhile human interaction that will bring us collectively closer to Truth and Wisdom? The ego is always suspect and that has kept my voice relatively silent. Any effort to speak out has been half-hearted at best. I believe that needs to change, I am just not certain I am qualified to make the effort. On the other hand, perhaps it is exactly this doubt and uncertainty that qualifies one to speak out. Perhaps that doubt and uncertainty should be expressed and encouraged. Inconvenient as it may be, perhaps the time is right for more widespread (internal and external) dissent.

If you have come across my work, the same rules apply - you should doubt every word. Decide for yourself; and then change your mind. Ask questions of yourself and others. Encourage uncertainty and dissent. Let your reality change with every evolving thought. I am not an expert and you should not be either ...

So here I stand - this week's thoughts have led me to the realization that to encourage doubt and uncertainty, I must first overcome doubt and uncertainty. O' what a tangled web ...

I have nothing this week. Which, if you've been paying attention, means that I have something. I just need to find it.

I've been distracted this week by 200+ chigger bites obtained on a picnic in a state park. I strayed from the beaten path and (this time) I paid the price. Next time, I will likely stray from the beaten path once again. This week sleep has been scarce, as has reflective thinking.

I could point out how pain and adversity are necessary for learning and growth, but if someone would have made that point with me earlier this week, we would have fought. I could use it as an object lesson for not straying from the beaten path, but to me 'beaten' implies conformity and even in the midst of this week's epsom salts extravaganza I would argue that each of us should blaze our own trails with thoughtful skepticism and disciplined perseverance. These thoughts have been expressed before.

Scratching an itch (or 200 as the case may be) is a temporary fix; and sometimes angers the affliction. But it also expresses one's humanity. We are physical beings in a physical world and regardless of effort there are times when that physicality overrides (or overwhelms) transcendental consideration. I am on the mend, but I do appreciate the reminder.

There is no such thing as this world. In the moment that I think of this world, it has changed. And in each moment and with each thought it changes again, into something new and different and potentially wondrous. In effect, this world is made up of the intangible; that being our hopes, our dreams, and our never-ending quest for Truth, Wisdom, and Happiness. It is not possible to grasp a reality of this world; once you think you have it, it has slipped through your fingers. So can we claim no reality? Can we live with no reality? It would appear delusional to maintain that hopes, dreams, or impossible perfections are real. But I can make a case that they are fluid, changing and growing as we do. And I just made the case that reality (as it is commonly and perhaps mistakenly defined) is fluid, changing with each new moment and with each new thought. So if it is delusional to claim dreams and reality as synonymous, perhaps we can at least recognize the sympatico between the two.

I would like to backtrack for a moment and qualify... I am coming at reality from an angle of individual perspective. I know reality can be defined (by some, and probably by most) as things that exist independently of thoughts or ideas concerning them, but for this discussion I am focusing exclusively on thoughts and ideas, and though thoughts and ideas cannot exist independently of thoughts and ideas, we would like to think they can exist independently of others' thoughts and ideas. So in this vein, perhaps we can define reality as 'an illusion of personal control' - and this appears to be required. Even if we are fooling ourselves, we need this sense of something solid to grasp. I am suggesting that perhaps by acknowledging the fluid, slippery nature of reality (as we think we know it) we can turn to hopes, dreams, and perfections as more solid hand holds to help us in our learning and growth. With these hand holds it seems we do at least have some control in their formation, whereas (I believe) the reality of this world dictates that we just grab on to something and hold on tight. And though we may have entwined personal hopes, dreams, and pursuits of perfection within that something that we agree with, or that we think we agree with, it is still an illusion of control. That something may be a job, or a system of belief (politics) or faith (religion), or it could be a family, or a significant other, or a combination of these or other things of this world; or in some cases we are just barely holding onto ourselves. But in all these cases, to varying degrees, and regardless of our personal contribution, the reality of this world is that we (as individuals) have limited control. The good news is that the more we doubt, and the more we question, the greater the potential for control.

I believe in worldly attachments. I am not advocating an exodus from this world's reality. I have (in previous posts) championed the practice of exoteric goodness as a potential bridge from the reality of this world to a transcendental reality. I believe our hopes, dreams, and pursuit of perfections should be active and contributory in this world. At the same time we need to recognize that for every bit of goodness we leave behind - In This World - there is an opposing potential to negate that goodness. That is not to say we should not practice exoteric goodness; it is only to say that we should also practice restraint; and to effectively hold opposing forces at bay, we must have had some say (control) in the thoughtful formation of our individual reality; (i.e. our personal hopes, dreams, and pursued perfections). This world does not offer any one of us the solidity each one of us can offer ourselves. If one chooses (only) the ways of this world, one should hold on tight...

One's hopes, dreams, and pursuit of perfections will add substance to one's reality; momentary as it may be...

Yesterday's dreams are Today's realities...