hopelesshappiness.com

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.

Personal Faith: the belief (in the face of contrary evidence) that there is transcendental meaning; characterized by uncertainty and a degree of inner turmoil.

Exoteric Goodness: selfless goodness left in one's wake in this Lifetime; an empirical interpretation of transcendental meaning.

Social Faith: a belief that comes as a result of indoctrination or groupthink; characterized by a 'strength in numbers' certainty, thereby mitigating or eliminating the necessity of individual interpretation or skepticism.

Cetainty is the antithesis of true personal faith.

Exoteric Goodness is encouraged by and can be accomplished through social faith or personal faith.

Inner Peace is a result of equitable Exoteric Goodness practiced with tolerance and without prejudice.

To know inner peace, one must know inner turmoil. What some would define as inner peace, I would define as acquiescence.

Exoteric Goodness is more meaningful (selfless and honest) when practiced through personal faith.

Inner Peace is more meaningful (profound and insightful) as a result of Exoteric Goodness practiced through personal faith.

Certainty is the antithesis of true personal faith ...

Reality is disappointing. We look for meaning through our children, spouse, and other friends and family; we look for meaning in our work, in social organizations, through entertainment, hobbies, and causes; we look for meaning through cheerfulness, busyness, study, status, and stability; we look for meaning under rocks, in the skies and seas, on mountaintops, in villages, cities, farms, and in the middle of nowhere; we look for meaning in science and technology, through experts and leaders (past and present), and within our self. And sometimes we look for meaning by denying the viability of meaning. But in the end, reality just does not live up to expectations.

We want answers; and in this lifetime answers - definitive answers - are often either illusionary or delusional. There are many noble and meaningful vehicles for meaningfulness. And many of these channels of expression fulfill their promise - from an empirical perspective. But in the end - from a transcendental perspective - these agents of meaning simply fall short.

Some would argue that empirical meaning - loving relationships, noble causes, exoteric goodness - is sufficient. And I would agree; right up to the end. At the end, one can and should take solace in a Life well-lived; one can and should give solace to loved ones in the form of their example. But at the end, it is not sufficient. At the end, uncertainty is inevitable; and unless one opts for illusion or delusion, uncertainty is the only certainty.

I would argue though that one can still find peace at the end, despite the ambiguity. One can find Peace through a Life of example that has included the assimilation of Dark, Light, and shared Consciousness. I would argue that Exoteric Goodness is the agent of meaning that has the strongest potential to transport one from empirical meaning to a transcendental meaning. I would argue that Inner Peace is a result of a Life that has left selfless Goodness in its wake. And I would argue that if a Transcendental Existence awaits - if empirical illusion becomes Transcendental reality (in any way, shape, or form) - then it would be advantageous to equitably practice Exoteric Goodness with tolerance and without prejudice.

So, no matter your perspective or belief, a strong case can be made for Exoteric Goodness. And in some ways (for me) it feels more honest and selfless to practice Exoteric Goodness from a strict empirical perspective.

Transcendental reality is an oxymoron in this empirical world. Those who are certain of a specific transcendental reality (especially those groups that profess absolute certainty) create divisiveness, encourage unyielding ignorance, and impede synergistic affinity. I acknowledge that any one individual or any one group may have it right; but how can any one individual or any one group not acknowledge that they may not have it right, or, that they may have it only partially right.

I believe many do understand, despite associations and assertions, that they may have it - (personal transcendental reality) - only partially right. I go a step further, avoiding definitive assertions, and recognizing the reality that I may be nowhere near the Truth. I am skeptical of each new insight / discovery, and that is why I keep searching.

In some ways this all sounds discouraging; but it is not. To embrace the Dark and the Light, and then to assimilate that knowledge within a shared consciousness, I believe encourages one to seek an ever-expanding circle of humanity to cooperatively apply interdependent Exoteric Goodness equitably, with tolerance, and without prejudice. Regardless, I would rather be aware of a range of varying possibilities than to be certain of one possible impossibility.

Anything is possible and everything is possibly impossible.

Reality is disappointing; and even when this disappointment fulfills its potential to encourage, a veneer of sadness remains.