hopelesshappiness.com

One morning this week I awoke to a loud buzzing. Before I opened my eyes it was almost as if I could feel the syncopated vibration of thousands of tiny wings inside my head. A second before I opened my eyes I somehow knew I was not in my bed. When I opened my eyes I found myself in a forest clearing about the size of a football field, rounded wider at one end. I was on my back with a cool, mossy stone for a pillow, and hovering inches away, above me, was the most beautiful flower I have ever seen. As I focused, I reaized it was a swarm of bees; brightly colored in the traditional yellow and black, but also in varying shades and intensities of red, purple, blue, white, orange, and green. The blacks and whites were predominant toward the center and the colors extended outward, with those more pale and muted nearer to the center, and the most vibrant and intense around the edges. I was not afraid as I reached up and through the swarm creating a funnel effect extending upwards around my arm. Not a single bee landed or even so much as brushed my arm with the tip of a wing. When I removed my arm, the bees resettled and the flower reformed. I experimented with this movement, at varying speeds and with everything from a single finger to a quick leg kick. Each time it was the same. I could feel their harmony and their communal nature.

I stood and the swarm shifted to a few inches in front of me, just below my chest. Looking down at this angle I noticed that the swarm had no depth. It was a perfect single layer, seemingly with each bee equidistant from each surrounding bee. I turned my back and with the swarm behind me, took several quick steps backward. As best as I could tell, it moved with me and remained the same few inches behind me; and I am confident that it retained it's perfect shape and form. Almost without thinking I stood rigid and fell backward into the swarm, somehow knowing what would happen. As I fell (it seemed in slow motion) the swarm repositioned and gently caught me. Now holding me aloft, we stayed in this position for several moments and then gently began to move. We were slow and steady at first and just a couple of feet off the ground, but then we gained both velocity and altitude. It was exhilarating and peaceful at the same time. I'm not sure I was even breathing, but I'm also not sure I needed to. It was as if the swarm and I were breathing as one.

As they carried me throughout the day, (at times over the treetops and at times hovering on the tops of meadow-seas of flowers) they did not seem to tire and I never doubted their ability to keep me safe and comfortable. I remember thinking more than once that the day seemed to stretch infinitely before me, but looking back it seems to have went by quickly; too quickly.

Near dusk we returned to the clearing where we began. I understood an expectant sense from the swarm and (though reluctant to do so) I prepared myself to be returned to my worldly dreams. Moments later the swarm tilted, depositing me feet first in my meadow. I took a seat next to last night's pillow. The swarm hovered for a moment directly above my head and then gently lowered itself to my shoulders, parting as it lowered, to where I could feel the tickle of thousands of tiny wings on my head, face, and neck. Then, those bees directly above my shoulders landed and were (for the first time) still. They stayed that way for a few moments, lifted themselves to rejoin the swarm, then the whole rotated and more bees landed. It was a choreographic wonder. This continued until (I assume) all the bees had their rest. Or perhaps they were saying good-bye. Or perhaps they were communicating another message.

As they lifted away, again brushing me with their wings, I laid my head back on the cool, mossy stone, and as I watched them gain altitude and move away, I found sleep. When I woke again I was in my bed, and again, I was dreaming sad and wondrous dreams of this world.

I believe that the wonder and beauty of this day will influence many days and dreams to come. I believe I will hear the thrumming syncopation of thousands of tiny wings for many days and dreams to come. Some may say the flower-swarm of bees is the dream. I am not so sure ...

This week I have been thinking about the good guys and the bad guys. Are you one of the good guys? Who are the bad guys? Would they say they're the good guys? Does that make you one of the bad guys?

This week I have been thinking about drivers and pedestrians. A right-hand-turning, left-hand-looking, cell-phone-talking (or otherwise oblivious) driver-at-a-stop-sign endangers and disrespects any pedestrian walking from the driver's right. Is this lack of necessary notice because drivers think of a pedestrian as a commonplace, dreary, flat, plodding, uninteresting nuisance? As a frequent walker, I too often feel looked upon as one of the walking dead; I hope not to be, but each day in this country there are approximately 100 traffic fatalities, and of those 12 to 13 are pedestrians. Both numbers are too high, but the pedestrian percentage seems unreasonably inordinate.

This week I have been thinking about umpires and baseball. Can an umpire make a bad call? Or is it a good call because it becomes fact, thus making it as it should be? (I am reminded of the umpire that responded to an arguing player, 'if you don't think you're out, read the morning paper.') Is the umpire a good guy (for doing a difficult job and maintaining order), or is he a bad guy (for not being perfect)? Is the fact that he will make mistakes a reason to not strive for perfection? Attend a Major League Baseball game and you will see firsthand that the expectation is perfection. Umpires often say that theirs is the only profession where you have to be perfect when you start and then improve from there. If only we could all live by this maxim ...

This week I have been thinking about mass media and the general public. Does the media convey information or tell stories? What is the difference between investigative journalism and creative hype? Has a 'slant' become unavoidable? Is a 'slant' necessary? Is the general public gullible, choosing a perspective and ignoring opposing viewpoints? Are traditional news outlets outdated? With technology, is there an overabundance of available information? Or is an excess of varying perspectives good? In terms of paid professionals, is anyone reporting the facts? Are the terms 'reporter' and 'reporting' too generous? Is it better than nothing?

This week I have been thinking about winter and summer. Summer is hot. Winter is cold. Summer has heat. Winter has snow and ice. Summer has long-light. Winter has early-dark. Summer has baseball. Winter has football. Summer follows winter. Winter follows summer.

This week I have been thinking about sales and shopping. Do we ever shop anywhere, anymore where everything is at regular price? And why do I feel like I need an attorney to decipher the exclusions and exceptions always found in fine print at the bottom of the sales circular? And why do I feel like I need a mathematics professor to calculate the best combination of mix and match, not good with any other offer dollar / percentage / points / rewards / cashback / past / present / future savings? And how are all the retailers able to have nearly identical sales on the same days? With nearly identical exclusions and exceptions? And based on these daily fluctuations, how can one accurately determine the monetary value of their purchase? Is the value of that steamer I bought 10 days ago at $49.99 worth $49.99, $74.99 (last week), $44.99 (this past weekend), or $39.99 (yesterday)? And who is responsible for these sales shenanigans? Is it the retailer? Or the shopper? And finally, what is the value of an unnecessary, under-appreciated, or seldom used bargain?

This week I have been thinking about 'Camp Dog' and "Slap ya Mama". Both are Cajun seasonings. One is a little smoky. The other is a little sharp. One has subtle layers. The other has distinctive layers. One is better on grilled foods. The other is better in gumbo. I prefer one. My wife prefers the other.

This week I have been thinking about winning and losing. Is it okay to win at any cost? Is it okay to use advantages that others may not have, in order to win? Is it okay even if those advantages were attained unfairly? Is it important to win? How do you know that you've won? How do you know that you've lost? When we concern ouselves with winning and losing, does that make the matter-at-hand a game? Are the people involved players? What is the difference between friendly or respectful competition and adversarial or cutthroat combat? Does there have to be a winner and/or a loser? Is it possible for everyone to win? Is it possible for no one to win? How important is winning to you?

This week I have been thinking about rules and rule-makers. Do we have enough rules yet? When will we have enough rules? When will we have had enough of rules? Are rules made to be broken? Is anarchy workable? Why must bureaucracies make rules to close loopholes that will only impact one-tenth of one-percent of their bottom-line when the damage incurred by pissing off the other 99.9 percent will be greater? Do rule-makers (or enforcers) always follow their own rules? Are bureaucratic rule-makers trained in soullessness? Or is it an innate attribute? And what about those who find themselves in a position of making, enforcing, and/or interpreting rules? (Becoming a parent is one example.) Can justice be doled out justly? Or will someone always have an advantage?

This week I have been thinking about legs and breasts. Legs are juicy and tender. Breasts can be juicy and tender. Legs are 3 bites and 2 nibbles. Breasts are abundant and generous. Legs take one hand. Breasts take both hands. Legs are better hot. Breasts are (surprisingly) good cold. I prefer legs peppered, breaded, and fried. I prefer breasts marinated, grilled, and smoky.

This week I have been thinking about energetic bustle and quiet calm. When I visit a coffee shop, sometimes I prefer the high-energy clattering, cluttering, chattering busyness of long lines, lots of people, and straight-backed chairs. Sometimes I prefer the peaceful, thought-inducing quiescence of slow jazz, hushed conversation, and a soft, comfy chair. When I visit my inner self, sometimes I prefer the shattering, shuttering, smattering fruition of confusion, disorder, and turmoil. Sometimes I prefer the epiphanous, in-the-moment enlightenment of beauty, truth, and timelessness.

This week I have been thinking ...

We are all on the outside looking in. We work each day at acquiring the shelter and security inherently promised by moving in. Our humanity dictates this need for a sense of belonging, but even when we manage it, we often find that a sense of longing remains. Some may claim satisfaction with their place and affiliations, but (in my mind) that deceptive comfort is actually complacency that leads to missed opportunities; a sense of longing should remain. Whether it is a group or an individual longingly looking in to the circle of another group or another individual, or an individual longingly searching within him or herself for an insightful glimpse into his or her own esoteric nature, we are all, in some sense, to varying degrees, and in varying circumstances, standing on the outside looking in. This is as it should be.

When one is on the inside, it is an indication of the true nature of belonging that on occasion another (on the outside) accuses you of 'being one of them'. Whether delivered good-naturedly or vindictively, this accusation causes discomfort and uncertainty, (along with some defensiveness). And it is also an indication of the true nature and necessity of opposites to find that we simultaneously need to belong and need to be unique, thus creating conflict and tension. Again, this is as it should be.

This dichotomy may assist in understanding why isolation is often painful. When we belong - when we are a part of like-minded thinking - we feel strong and certain. When alone, it is more difficult to maintain certainty, and nearly impossible to attain a consensus. Alone, one must stretch by adding complexity and depth to a more thoughtful analysis. With no agreement or consensus one must (should) more closely examine motives, resulting behaviors, and potential consequences. This is also as it should be.

I believe I am arguing against the often easier groupthink consensus and for a thoughtful interdependent independence. I have made the beginnings of a case (above) for independence, but how can independence (free from the control or influence of others) be interdependent (mutually dependent, with synergy)? The key is mutual synergy - each individual must contribute in order to make the whole greater than the sum of its parts. And maximal synergy is not possible without individual openness to change, which in turn is not possible without uncertainty and the desire to question everything; including oneself.

In previous posts I have maintained that certainty is the antithesis of true personal faith. Certainty also dampens and at times snuffs out independent thought and/or the sharing of independent thought. Before we (humanity as a whole) can attain any semblance of synergy or a shared consciousness, we (humanity as a collection of individuals) must learn to cultivate and harvest independent thought.

The challenge does not so much lie in the empowerment of individual thinkers as it does in the dis-empowerment of hardcore political bosses. In recent years we have consistently moved toward individual empowerment through more widespread organizational initiatives, and through the use of technology. The challenge is that hardcore political bosses do not believe in individual empowerment or they are just going through the motions of empowering others, and are unwilling to relinquish their power and control mistakenly thought to be deserved and earned by superior skills and/or knowledge; (I should qualify by saying that some individuals are gifted and deserving of some decision-making power, but this too often leads to an 'I know best - I am indispensable - your input is unnecessary' mindset, and as discussed in recent posts no one individual is any more or any less necessary than any other one individual).

I am not sure of an answer for this power/control dilemma in the business world as it is unlikely that dissidence will overthrow those who sign the paychecks, and more likely that the dissident(s) will soon be without that paycheck. In the realm of elected officials though, perhaps a message that re-election is unlikely may (at the least) ease the stranglehold, allowing enough breath to voice independent thought. I go back to thoughts in this previous post including the encouragement to teach young people how to think instead of what to think, and the movement away from narcissistic entitlement and toward simplified reason and logic; and with these considerations, perhaps in two or three generations we will be closer to a true interdependent independence.

Simply put, compassion, empathic listening, respect for independent thought, and the realization that each one of us is equally significant and necessary will ultimately bring us closer to a universally shared and synergistic consciousness, which in turn will inspire individual exoteric goodness and intensify one's inner peace.

I begin writing each week (usually) on Monday or Tuesday; sometimes later; never earlier. I write throughout the week and continue to revise my writing and fine tune my thoughts through Saturday. I have published more than 100 posts on more than 100 consecutive Saturdays. When I begin writing I usually have a general idea of the direction and destination. Some posts are a continuation of previous week's thoughts, though each week I do my best to create a post that will also stand on its own. All posts are in some way connected to one's search for Truth, Wisdom, and (upper-case) Happiness. Most posts (as I think and write) offer some surprise. And some posts begin with a thought or discovery that feels significant, so I jump on it and write to where it takes me, with no (consciously) planned route or destination; this is one of those weeks.

I read the excerpt below last night; (Monday). The character speaking is from Dennis LeHane's work of fiction 'Live By Night'. It feels relevant. We will see where it takes me.

"A loan shark breaks a guy's leg for not paying his debt, a banker throws a guy out of his home for the same reason, and you think there's a difference, like the banker's just doing his job but the loan shark's a criminal. I like the loan shark because he doesn't pretend to be anything else, and I think the banker should be sitting where I'm sitting right now; [in prison]."

The obvious connection to Truth and Wisdom is the realization that there is a very fine line between legitimacy and disdain. Personally I don't like the banker or the loan shark. I believe to physically harm another is wrong. I also believe it is wrong to hide within the nooks and crannies of bureaucracy in order to avoid personal responsibility. Legality can not and should not be the standard for ethics or morality as it is impossible to legislate behavior in all possible circumstance; (though some certainly try). I do agree with Joe (in the excerpt above) that the loan shark is more truthful and responsible, though this does not (in my mind) excuse or justify the physical harm of another.

Now with that out of my system, I want to dig a little deeper ...

Though the loan shark may have a sense of personal responsibility and truthfulness, and the banker may be oblivious and/or ignorant, there is no evidence that either have a complete sense of Light, Dark, and the importance of shared consciousness. The loan shark may have a better grasp of the Dark and the banker may appear to have a better grasp of the Light, but again the banker may be play-acting, oblivious, or lost in a maze of bureaucracy. Neither are complete; and this may be part of the relevance I intuited when I first read the passage - every individual possesses some attributes that contribute to a whole, and due to one's humanity some of those attributes are not what one would deem admirable. Even if the banker's and the loan shark's attributes were commingled with those of someone you might nominate for sainthood, the result would still be a mixture of Dark and Light and would fall short of Perfection. And... I have previously stated that no one person is any more or less necessary than any one other person. For the sake of balance, I believe the banker, the loan shark, and the saint-elect are each as necessary and as indispensable to empirical humanity. I believe the only theoretic path to a True Whole - an Absolute Perfection - in this empirical existence is to synthesize the energy of every human that has ever lived or will ever live, past, present, and future. A daunting task, and of course (at least today) not possible; but the mental exercise illustrates the sheer immensity of humanity, and the absolute necessity of each individual.

These are all valid thoughts and an interesting application of Joe's perspective, but so far this feels like a review. I will keep digging ...

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

Perhaps this comparison of the banker and the loan shark is relevant on a more basic level. (I'm not yet sure where I'm going with this, but we'll ride it out.) Perhaps I am struck by Joe's perspective because (like it or not) it highlights our very human need for attention. When the loan shark breaks a leg, it feels more personal. When the banker (using intermediaries) throws someone to the curb, it feels more impersonal. To hurt is to live; to be ignored - a nobody - or (worse yet) a number - is to lose (at least) a little vibrancy. If the loan shark breaks my leg, I will feel and I will be moved; if the banker has me thrown out of my home I will also feel and be moved, but as a result of a series of detached, emotionless, disinterested legal maneuvering; and because of this indifference, a piece of my humanity slips into a coma.

We have become a world of specialists all just doing a job and we learn to see things from that perspective; (a police officer sees criminals, a doctor sees sick people, a store clerk sees complainers, a banker sees numbers). We have lost sight of the bigger picture; we no longer see people. People get in the way of doing a job. I believe a complete person has become unnecessary; we simply take the piece (of that person) that we need, to complete a given task, and we move on.

Perhaps this is the way it has always been; but that does not make it good. Perhaps throughout history humanity has limited the degree of attainable shared consciousness by creating adversarial relationships; but that does not mean we should not strive for the previously unattainable. There are many past impossibilities that are now possible and tangible. Perhaps these fine lines between specialists are there to define a short leap. Perhaps if the loan shark could leap into the consciousness of the banker, (and the banker into the consciousness of the loan shark), then from there perhaps both could leap into the consciousness of a philanthropist, and the three could then leap into the consciousness of the homeless family they are trying to help, with the ongoing, self-perpetuating result being an ever-expanding universal consciousness that will pull us forward, as a whole, closer and closer to Truth, Wisdom, and Happiness.

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

So perhaps the tale of the banker and the loan shark simply represents encouragement to get in touch; understand that humanity is both a collection of individuals and a perfected whole; and understand that each individual is a whole unto her or himself and as necessary and indispensable as any one other individual, regardless of circumstance.

I write. It has been a personal passion for a majority of my years; along with cooking, reading, and listening to music.

I am an avid reader and collector of music. I do not possess extraordinary talent in cooking or writing, though occasionally circumstances gel to hint at a potential that characterizes my passion. I choose music, books, and recipes eclectically, which in turn influence thought processes and the resulting actions/behaviors.

This week I have been internally debating the merits of scaling back on the time and energy spent writing in order to expand my repertoire in the other less strenuous passions. (For example, it has been 9 years since I have made a batch of beer.) I believe I have already talked myself down from this ledge. Now I am examining why I write ... why I am compelled to write.

I obviously do not write for fame or fortune; and I realize that if even a small amount of either (perhaps in the form of 'local notoriety' or 'making a living') found me, it would change the nature of my thoughts and behaviors, thus impacting and/or corrupting the content of my written thoughts. So as I have said before, obscurity has its advantages. But then one (including myself) may ask, why write in a public forum if not to seek some attention? I address this more in-depth in the aforementioned 'obscurity' post (Silent Happiness) but the best answer I have is that this vehicle is an attempt to balance my ego-driven humanity with my efforts to transcend.

This same dynamic (ego to transcendence) is at play in my desire to leave something of tangible importance for my children. I have previously danced with and around this idea in the posts Happiness Left Behind and Daily Happiness. I identified one's legacy as a critical aspect of exoteric goodness, and broke it down into the simple concept that one should live each day as a microcosm of a Life well-lived. This daily discipline and effort put into the organization and analysis of my thoughts, and their transfer to a written format, is my contributory hope that I am practicing exoteric goodness and leaving something of myself behind.

I also write for the sake of my sanity; not in a 'postal' sense of the word, but more to cultivate a disciplined focus, that in turn leads to learning, growth, and an acknowledgment of reality. I believe one needs (at least) occasional reassurance that we have a grip on reality. There are times when my thoughts are jumbled, confused, and uncertain. By translating them into written form I am able to reassure myself that my grip on reality (though slippery) remains. I believe that anyone who believes they have a firm grip on reality is actually holding on (sometimes for dear life) to an illusion. By writing, I am able to recognize both the elusive fluidity and the solid necessity of reality. And in this sense, it keeps me sane.

And finally, there is an inner transcendence that flows in direct proportion to what is lost in translation from my thoughts to my writing; (the less that is lost, the greater the transcendence). There is always some loss; and if my thoughts take a verbal detour and never make it to the page, there is a much greater loss. The written word offers clarity, permanence, and value that the spoken word will never match; so until I am able to consistently (on a daily basis) share a trascendent consciousness with everyone I would like, I will continue to write.