hopelesshappiness.com

I am rethinking power and compassion, and having new thoughts about their expected and actual relationship in contemporary Western society. Channeling Friedrich Nietzsche for a moment, perhaps strength and power are more natural, instinctive aspects of one's humanity than are compassion and altruism. Perhaps compassion and altruism are learned behaviors. Perhaps it is envy that turns one against power and control, and for those in possession of it (the power and control) perhaps this envy of others further strengthens their determination to hold onto it.

I look around and see numerous power struggle mini-dramas played out daily; (some within myself). Perhaps this acknowledgment of a human need for power can create a greater understanding for behavior lacking compassion. Perhaps this immorality (still channeling Nietzsche) is as it should be.

If immorality is as it should be, then why does it seem important to so many to put on a compassionate face? Why not be truthful? (i.e. "I have the power and you don't - na-na-na-na-boo-boo!") If I add a pragmatic perspective to this nihilistic view, perhaps it will lead to an answer; or at least a yet deeper understanding of the forces at play.

American philosopher Richard Rorty (1931-2007) said that 'truth is what your contemporaries let you get away with.' Today, in contemporary society, one must temper their hold on power with representative compassion and altruism. To do otherwise would endanger that hold on power. We have 'learned' that compassion, kindness, consideration, generosity, and other like-minded synonyms are expected behaviors, while their antonyms (some of which are necessary to gain and hold power) are unacceptable and/or (at the least) frowned upon. So perhaps we have created a two-headed, two-faced monster (2 faces on both heads?) consisting of one's natural inclination toward power and one's learned inclination toward compassion. According to this line of thought (and based on personal observation) a fair portion of altruistic behaviors, and in many cases simple kindnesses, are motivated by one's instinctive yearning for power.

I believe most of us have at least some power in some arenas (and like it), and are envious of those with the power in other arenas. Keeping this dichotomy in mind, I will say again, perhaps the immorality associated with power is as it should be.

Now I will argue against the power of power ...

Having seen Hurricane Katrina and the immediate aftermath firsthand, I can attest to many, many acts of compassion and altruism that were (to me) obviously natural and instinctive. During a time of crisis people pulled together and, with no ulterior motives, helped each other. So perhaps compassion and altruism can also lay claim to an ancestry as ancient as that of power. Unfortunately (referring again to Hurricane Katrina) within a few days the balance of power(s) was reinstated. For those few days though, true authority was weakened or absent and the playing field had been leveled. With everyone on equal or near-equal footing, and with so much to be done, giving everyone equal opportunity to help, power struggles became unnecessary. It was when the flood of outsiders (both those coming to take advantage and those coming to take charge) swamped the area that power restablished its predominance over compassion and individual power struggles reappeared.

So it appears that power's predominance over compassion may be a result of socialization and specialization, but I believe large scale and small scale personal crises show that compassion is every bit as instinctive and hard-wired as is power. There are unlearned and learned aspects to both and in today's sociocultural climate we have learned to act in accordance with both, but we have also learned that (except in a time of crisis) it is more advantageous to seek, gain, and hold power, thus making it more automatic and instinctive, and relegating compassion to a learned/forced behavior or facade.

Which brings me to the question, can one transcend their contemporary humanity and reach an authentic, untainted compassion? Some (including Nietzsche) might ask, why would one desire to transcend their humanity to show weakness, when humanity is all one has? I would argue for the transcendental compassion, if for no other reason, as an exercise in potentiality. I believe there are other reasons; however, I also believe it to be a daunting task to convince the multitudes to subject themselves to crisis-mode stress AND leave their comfort zones AND relinquish power and control for something so laboriously menial as closing the gap on Truth, Wisdom, and Happiness.

Though I believe we currently operate on a premise of pragmatic nihilism, I disagree with Richard Rorty that the fact that 'our contemporaries let us get away with it' makes it truth. The Truth is beyond our reach. And though I may or may not be on the right track with power and compassion; and though I will never (in this Lifetime) know the Truth; I will continue to reach ...

I have not studied Soren Kierkegaard in depth and do not claim expertise on the man or his philosophy. And some may say I have taken him somewhat out of context, but be that as it may, the quotes used throughout this post fit the context of this week's thoughts.

"Take away paradox from the thinker and you have a professor." Substituting synonyms, one (relevant) application of Soren Kierkegaard's statement is, 'In the absence of adversity or experiential learning, one mindlessly lectures.' I believe this thinking exposes two dangers:

1. If one burrows too deeply into a comfort zone, then if/when they are unceremoniously yanked out, adaptability and resiliency have been compromised, thus jeopardizing any sort of rapid recovery; and
2. Comfort encourages Conformity, leading to Certainty, thereby fortifying the outer walls of one's Comfort Zone and starting the cycle again.

There is some obvious overlap in the two scenarios above, but I believe the first is more often characteristic of avoidance whereas the second is more often indicative of ignorance. Ignorance is bliss and bliss is comfortable.

Which brings me to a second Kierkegaard quote: "There is nothing with which every man is so afraid as getting to know how enormously much he is capable of doing and becoming." Are we afraid of becoming? Or are we afraid of the struggle and adversity inherent in the doing? Or, perhaps both? And is it a conscious or a subconscious fear? I believe the answers to these questions will be unique to the individual; and I believe they are valid, necessary questions if one is truly committed to a lifetime of learning and growth. For me, the fear/anxiety of becoming seems more subconscious, whereas the doing is a conscious, acknowledged hesitancy. I need to drag the former into the Light for study, and to get past the latter I need to let go of the future; (see last week's post.) I have been raised and live in an era and a culture of individualistic conformity; or (in a harsher light) narcissistic docility - we care about the wrong things. This cannot be an excuse.

Which brings me to another Kierkegaard quote: "One can advise comfortably from a safe port."

Not only did Kierkegaard speak out against day-to-day comfort and conformity, but he also felt very strongly about complacency in religion, implying that those who choose a spiritual path are totally alone and should face hardship and even anguish. Many consider(ed) Kierkegaard's views (then and now) as extremist, but his point is well-taken. I agree that spirituality and transcendental thinking must originate from and continue to reside within. Indoctrination is too easy.

I do not remember having previously seen parallels between empirical (day-to-day) existence and transcendental (spiritual) thought, this clearly. I am fairly certain that I have not stated the following, though I feel it has been implied: 'To advance empirically OR transcendentally one must choose hardship by learning from the past, consulting with the future, and letting go of both (the past and the future) in order to decide and act in the moment in accordance with the highest ideals of (unattainable) perfection for whatever the challenge.' Chasing Perfection is rife with adversity.

The key aspect is that one must choose hardship ... Kierkegaard makes the point (paraphrasing) that some may claim that adversity prevents one from reaching a goal but if one prospers without adversity then their's is a false prosperity. He goes on to make a case for the importance of "objective uncertainty." Kierkegaard's application is to religious faith when he says "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."

Certainty is the antithesis of true faith, be it in transcendental thought (as implied by Kierkegaard) or empirical behavior (that leads to exoteric goodness and/or inner peace). One must always question, act, and move on, while doing no harm.

Yes, uncertainty makes Life hard; but isn't that the point?

Francois-Marie Arouet (1694-1778) better known as Voltaire was once imprisoned in the Bastille in Paris because he had insulted a powerful aristocrat.

This is relevant. I'm not sure to what degree, or even (ultimately) to what yet, but it has been tugging at my thoughts for a couple of weeks now.

On a basic level, perhaps I am defending freedom of expression, or cautioning against unchecked power, or lamenting the injustice of unchecked power stifling expression.

Though these thoughts are valid, it feels like there is more. This power/expression dance is a daily occurrence. We must constantly be on our guard in what we say and how we act; all based on an oftentimes tenuous balance of power.

So digging deeper, perhaps I am advocating truthful expression with oneself as I did in the post Uninhibited Happiness where I quote Immanuel Kant who said, "the highest maxim, uninhibited truthfulness toward oneself as well as in the behavior toward everyone else, is the only proof of a person's consciousness of having character." If one must censor expression to others, is it possible to balance truthful inner self-expression? Or do we also present a conscious or subconscious facade to ourselves, for the sake of consistency? And to help us live a lie.

I may be closer, but this still doesn't feel enough; especially since I covered this line of thought in the aforementioned previous post. So if it is not completely about others and only partially about me, then what is left of this Voltaire incident that is still goading me to further thought. I am perplexed ...

New thought - If Voltaire represents Truth, Wisdom, and Happiness, and the Aristocrat represents the boundaries and restraints imposed upon each of us by our humanity and the natural restrictions of the physical, empirical nature of this world, then this incident points out the hopelessness of ever attaining the perfected ideal of Happiness. But then I've been saying that in various ways for nearly two years now; so I don't believe that is the answer I'm looking for either.

Perhaps I am simply feeling ineffective; confined in a self-imposed spiral of doubt and uncertainty. Perhaps I have imprisoned myself with expectations of outcomes that due to various uncontrollable variables are unrealistic. I am not one to willingly change my expectations. So how then do I escape this hesitancy and lack of confidence? I see two possibilities:

1. Create an inner facade; (i.e. lie to myself); or
2. Serve my time.

The 1st option is not an option; though I know I do it to some extent, regardless of my efforts otherwise. So that leaves option #2 - Serve my time. Since this imprisonment is based on the whims of a tyrant (myself) and buffeted by the winds of change (many of which I do not control), I do not know the length of my sentence. (I believe these entanglements and uncertainties as described are true in various circumstances and to varying extents for everyone; and probably somewhat more so of late, for me.)

Or perhaps I am confused. Perhaps there is a third possibility beyond prevarication and/or captivity. If I completely eliminate any/all expectations regarding outcomes - if I focus only on free-will choices and their execution - if I stop trying to predict and control the future - then perhaps I will truly be free to live in the moment, for the future. This is not to excuse the process of planning, or to discourage proactive thought. Rather, it is to encourage one to go through that process, make a choice, execute, and then let go of the future, and move on. A prison sentence, by definition, is being chained to a future. Whereas in the moment, I am free to think and choose as I like.

I have recently chided myself (and others) to let go of the past and move on, so perhaps (as I said above) the relevance of Voltaire's imprisonment is encouragement to also let go of the future and move on. One is always free in the moment. If I feel trapped, confined, or restricted, it is in the past or the future. If I feel confused, uncertain, or doubtful, it is about the past or the future. There are no chains, bonds, or shackles in the present moment.

In this moment, I am free.

I believe this, and these thoughts are consistent with my recent thoughts on free-will; (here and here). Voltaire lived this philosophy as illustrated in the descriptive quote - 'I hate what you say, but will defend to the death your right to say it' - and in his lifetime of challenging power (to the point of imprisonment) to defend freedom of expression and religious toleration.

I also believe that Exoteric Goodness and ultimately Happiness can only be judged at the end of one's Life. And to diligently and faithfully search for Truth and Wisdom throughout a Lifetime, I believe one must throw off the shackles of the past and of the future, yet learn from the past and consult with the future, in order to make relevant choices in the moment that will positively contribute to Exoteric Goodness, Inner Peace, and ultimately close the gap on Happiness. Yes - this is much easier said than done; but still ...

In this moment, I am free ...

A few weeks ago I wrote the following in the post Global Happiness; 'I can live by guiding principles of my choosing. I can live with compassion and empathy for others. Having learned from the past, I can live in the moment, for the future. I can live without making excuses. I can live with the knowledge that my humanity will interfere with the nobility of the thoughts above. And I can live each day making a concerted effort to transcend my humanity.'

This week I have some guiding principles clashing with my compassion and empathy for others, and my humanity is definitely interfering. I am struggling to determine the 'right' (meaning moral, ethical, principled) course of action that will maximize exoteric goodness and inner peace. From a short-term perspective I know the answer, and I believe the short-term answer is frequently the 'easy' choice. But I do not want to confuse 'in the moment' and 'for the moment' by making the easy choice. So I believe I need to look at it from a long-term perspective, where I believe the choice becomes more difficult and has a greater potential to create upheaval and turmoil for both myself and others; (though others - potentially excepting significant others - will likely recover more quickly than I).

'Last week' I wrote about free-will and how it resides in the choice, not in the outcome. The thoughts from that post have broadened my sense of justice to include potential undesirable (from my perspective) outcomes. Perhaps it is 'just' that I get slathered with some of the blowback; it is after all, a result of my choice. And I tend to rock the boat with difficult choices, both in thoughtful analysis and in execution. This is relevant to the previous paragraph in that I am now more cognizant of (and more amenable to?) the potential value of short-term gains.

So how does one balance consideration for others with their own principled sense of right and wrong? Yes, compassion and empathy is a principle as well, but it is a principle that in its execution is projected outwards (though it may originate from within), whereas the conflicting principles I'm dealing with this week originate from within and reside within. Of late I have behaved as if esoteric principles trump exoteric principles. (Again, I believe all principles originate from or have been implanted within, but exoteric principles - like exoteric goodness - not only project outward but are identifiably recognizable by others, whereas esoteric principles are intuitive and difficult to objectify or put into words.)

With all that said, I have run headlong into the question, can one justify and live with one's principles being bought? Of course one's principles 'can' be bought, but that in itself generally goes against my principles. But ... If exoteric and esoteric principles conflict, can a payment (monetary or otherwise) sway/influence one's stand on principle. In this specific case, my esoteric principles hold an edge over my exoteric principles by about 2 to 1, but I also realize that (as I implied last week) I do not have a stellar track record for accurately predicting the outcomes of my free-will choices. So in the interest of balance - both empirical/transcendental and exoteric/esoteric - perhaps empirical payment/reward should have some influence. Which brings me to the question, how much influence?

If I typically give esoteric principles a 2 to 1 edge over exoteric principles, is there an empirical value that can level the playing field or give outwardly-projected principles the edge? And if so, is that okay? My instinct says that esoteric principles should always trump exoteric principles, but the world at times, seems to say differently. From my observations/perspective, we too often make the 'easy' choice and too frequently go along to get along. I often take this perceived bias into account and intentionally choose to rock the boat. But since my thoughts last week (expanding my sense of justice to include my own bouts of seasickness) I am waffling.

I ask again - Are my (esoteric-intuitive-difficult to objectify or put into words) principles for sale? If I have to answer right now - I give you a resounding ... Maybe. At the very least, we can negotiate.

One Day Later - I have just reread the draft of this post, and by agreeing to negotiate, I feel compromised and violated. But from an exoteric, empirical perspective, and in the interest of calm seas, I am still willing to hear your offer.

Last week I made the comment that regardless of those who may claim 'free-will' is an illusion, most of us act as if perception is reality. I will get to free-will in a few moments, but first I want to examine this perception/reality paradox. Is it okay to treat perception as reality if it is not reality? Because isn't that what we are doing when we say that we 'act' as if perception is reality? And even if we are just acting, do we have a choice? Or is perception, in actuality, reality as suggested by the philosopher Gerorge Berkeley? And if this is True, then what is reality? Is reality also perception? Or must reality be measurable, tangible, or empirical in its nature? Which brings up the question, are thoughts empirical? Why do we have such difficulty agreeing on the concept of a transcendental reality? Or, for those who agree on the possibility of a transcendental reality, why do we have such difficulty specifically defining or identifying said entity or entities? I refer back to what a neurosurgeon once said; that they had cut open many skulls, seen many functioning brains, but had not once seen a thought. Does that not prove the existence of transcendental reality? I guess that depends on how you differentiate/define empirical and transcendental. I don't have, nor have I run across, definitive answers for these epic questions; though we have been asking them for ages.

So now I want to examine this whole idea of free-will ...

How does one really know at any given time if they are exercising free-will? Does it depend on the circumstance? Do we have free-will in some situations and not in others? If everything we do is determined by previous empirical causes or predetermined by transcendental forces beyond our comprehension, (or some degree in between), then what's the point? I would maintain that by our actions (the fact that every day, we keep putting one foot in front of the other) most of us apparently believe there is a point, and that we do exercise (at least some) free-will; so why even ask the question?

(Speaking for myself) I believe I ask the question because I sometimes confuse free-will with control. I forget that free-will applies to choices and just because I am proactive and execute on carefully thought out choices, does not mean I control the outcome or consequences. I make predictions and have an intuitive sense of what is 'right' for me, but once my free-will begins to romp and cavort with other's free-will, my predictions may miss the mark by a wide margin. And in my frustration, I mistake this for an absence or shortage of free-will. My free-will was exercised and defined by the choices I made, not by the outcome; and as I see evolving outcomes I can make new choices, thus exercising free-will (again) that will go out (again) and network (again), thus impacting my desired result (again). And on and on it goes... Some will still refute free-will with deterministic arguments, but I fall clearly on 'Team Free-Will' and will continue to exercise it through carefully thought out choices.

So I am stating that as my perception and my reality and my free-will intimately intertwine, (merging here, and lashing out there), and then repeat this dance of digression with other's free-will in the form of actions and behaviors, I must remain balanced and know to recognize the difference between free-will and control. This now (as my written thoughts often do) seems obvious.

Yet with all this said, the (so-far) unanswerable question remains - where and how is the why?