hopelesshappiness.com

I believe everyone in existence (past, present, and future) is a Zombie; everyone that is, except me. Granted, you are a very sophisticated form of Zombie in that I don't see you eating brains and each one of you present yourself as very much like me, but I still believe you are a Zombie. I know I am not a Zombie because I have a sense of me; I can self-identify. I would like to believe that you also are able to self-identify, but I can think of no way to prove this. I have no sense-of-me for you. You are you - a Zombie.

You may truly believe you are not a Zombie and I know you would like to argue and plead your case but the fact is there is nothing you can say or do that will compel me to conceive or believe otherwise. As long as you maintain this facade of humanity, I will do so in kind. We can continue to learn and grow together in mutually beneficial and respectful relationships. You are no more or less necessary than me, and I am no better than you in any way; except one - I am not a Zombie.

Here is another supporting proof that you are a Zombie: I have free will; that is the potential to feel, think, and act in any way I please. You, on the other hand, are simply out there impacting my desired results; (which is okay because the impact is often synergistic and positive, and when it is not, I learn from the adversity - just please don't eat my brain). You do not have free will in that all I observe from you are reactions. If you want to disagree on this point I challenge you to reveal the source of your free will which you will be unable to do because the source of my free will is my sense-of-me and since you cannot prove a personal sense-of-me to me you cannot have free will and, you are still a Zombie.

Further supporting proof: I am fairly adept at reading and interpreting my thoughts but I am unable to read or interpret your thoughts with any consistent accuracy (oftentimes even when you verbalize them). Additionally, you are unable to read or interpret my thoughts and I 'Have' a sense-of-me which (if you were a non-zombie like me) should simplify the process. So the fact that you are contemplating my brain as a comestible delicacy instead of a thought-producing consciousness often gets in the way of sharing thoughts beyond words.

Additional substantiation: I have purpose in my movement supported by the fact that wherever I go, there I am. You wander aimlessly, often in packs, you are easily distracted by and attracted to noise, and wherever you go if I am not there you lack a sense-of-me. Those times I do find myself out amongst you it is me exercising free will, and often when I am there and I ask you 'what's going on?' you respond, "nothing." 'Hello' - 'Anyone Home?' - No; because you are a Zombie.

At this point you might want to argue that you could invert this equation and claim that you are the only non-zombie. This will not hold up because (1) that is exactly what a Zombie would say, and (2) if you were not a Zombie you would have already made this claim. It took me 53 years as a rational, sane, non-zombie human to discover this truth and as far as I know it has never been presented in exactly these terms. Now though, there will be many Zombies jumping on the bandwagon, confusing the issue, and claiming not to be a Zombie; which is sadly predictable.

In my Lifetime there have been a few Beings that I have felt occasional, momentary vibrancy in what is otherwise a pale, translucent reflection of a mutual sense-of-me. Please don't misread this as an aspersion; it is not. This pale reflection is a thrilling accomplishment, because for all but a very small handful of the Zombies on this planet I have no 'sense-of-me' connection at all. Unfortunately though, even in these connections with my wife, my children, and other close family and friends, I am still unable to verify that any part of this sense-of-me is emanating from anyone but me. Therefore, regardless of the sincere, deeply-felt Love, the fact remains that I am married to a Zombie, my children are Zombies, and the in-laws are ... well ... the in-laws are Zombies and in-laws.

Bottom line: I believe I have now proven that everyone in existence (past, present, and future) is a Zombie; everyone that is, except me.

Happy Halloween!

We do not have to understand the reason we are driven or compelled to act. There are multiple examples in nature of animal and plant behavior that is beneficial, but we do not believe that the tree comprehends or is able to express why it spreads its branches. The same can be said of why the cicada has a reproductive cycle that is a prime number, or why the optimal shape for cells in a honeycomb is the hexagon; 17-year locusts and bees cannot express the mathematical reasoning behind their natural inclinations except by continuing to act in a manner that is (for whatever reason) more beneficial.

So why do we (humans) feel compelled to search for answers / reasons? It must be the same (underlying) reason that the bee creates hexagonal honeycomb cells; it must, (in some way that we cannot quite grasp, express, or prove), be beneficial.

We humans have long asked the question 'Why?' It is one of the first questions we (feel compelled to) ask as a very small child, and it is (unfortunately) one of the first questions discouraged by the world of adults. It appears that other animal and plant species do not spend energy pondering 'why'. They seem to simply go about their business resolving where, what, when, who, and how in order to live another day. If you are following the line of thought, you know I am not suggesting we model our behavior after other species; though some 'powers that be' may prefer that. I am suggesting that we continue to ask 'Why?' and I am suggesting that we do not get caught up in asking why we ask why. As a group (all of Humanity) we will (and should) continue our quest for Truth and Wisdom; i.e. Happiness. As individuals we will continue to do this to varying degrees, but I am confident that a very large majority of us periodically ponder 'Why?' in one set of circumstances or another. I am 53 years old - My wife and I went shopping for a new bed 2 weeks ago - The one we chose has a 25 year guarantee - The night we purchased it I asked her if we had just bought our deathbed. We laughed; but it is on this proverbial deathbed that many of us ultimately come around to the question 'Why?' And that is as close as I will get to a reason why we ask why, (and why we attempt to answer why); and it is very similar to the question - Why do all plant and animal species feel compelled to live another day?

These thoughts encouraged me to revisit a previous post. Upon doing so I am struck (again) by the wide chasms between varying transcendental beliefs, and the absolute certainty with which many are presented. This is (briefly) characterized by the following excerpt from that post, 'Global Happiness':

"Look at what large populations in proximity to other large populations have accomplished compared to isolated bands, tribes, or even small countries with smaller populations. Yet spiritually we have chosen to isolate ourselves in small bands, on separate islands, whose flora and fauna represent varying faiths, beliefs, and superstitions. Perhaps we need a Great Flood to bring us together; or a Great Drought to dry up the land and the seas, and show us we are not that far apart."

And this took me back to the previous post 'Discomfortable Happiness' in which I quoted Soren Kierkegaard:

"If I am able to apprehend God objectively, I do not have faith; but because I cannot do this, I must have faith. If I want to keep myself in faith, I must continually see to it that I hold fast the objective uncertainty, see to it that in the objective uncertainty I am out on 70,000 fathoms of water and still have faith."

From there I went on to say that 'Certainty is the antithesis of true faith.'

Faith is defined as 'belief that is not based on proof.' A 'Leap of Faith' further illustrates the implied uncertainty that is necessary for faith to be faith. Those who claim to KNOW the answer to the question 'Why?' and those who have stopped asking the question 'Why?' are operating from a position of oblivious ignorance, as opposed to the favorable acknowledged ignorance; (see 'last week's post' where I make the case that to know is to not know, and to not know is to know).

In previous posts I have touted exoteric goodness and inner peace each as a potential bridge from empirical reality to a transcendental possibility; (see this previous post - 'Conceptualizing Happiness'). Based on recent week's thoughts, I believe the flow from (1) acknowledged ignorance to (2) uncertainty and doubt to (3) thoughtful, skeptical questioning of everything to (4) our continuing search for Truth and Wisdom, (I originally dubbed the Why-Flow) also has the potential to bridge that gap from empirical reality to a potential transcendental reality. Upon further examination I believe this Why-Flow is more of a Why-Cycle as the last position (our continuing search for Truth and Wisdom) brings us back to our first position (acknowledged ignorance), thus like all efficient cycles accomplishes some work and restores the system to its original position in order to accomplish more work.

And asking 'Why?' is work; especially in the face of those who would like to squelch the question and cast out those who ask it. Though my efforts may appear futile (even at times to myself) I have faith that, like the accidental discovery of polishing stone into a hand axe, my incremental accumulations will continue to benefit me and (by virtue of this active, contributory hope) hold the potential for wider beneficence.

'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 ...