hopelesshappiness.com

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?

Chicken/Egg Question: Does sensory input result in actions identifiable as behaviors ultimately creating character? Or does character determine behaviors that in turn impact one's interpretation of sensory input?

My initial thought is that the in-your-face senses of sight and sound are more likely to influence one's actions and reactions thus having a greater impact on one's character; whereas one's character is more likely to call on and interpret the more subtle senses of touch, taste, and smell. The extended suggestion is that if one were less reactive and more proactive towards the in-your-face senses a stronger case could be made for free-will; (some may argue that it would still be an 'illusion' of free-will, but nonetheless, most of us act as if perception is reality, so ...).

I have taken these thoughts on the hierarchy and significance of sensory input and applied parallels to the Ingredients of Happiness as originally identified in 'this previous post' and on the 'Periodic Happiness Table of Elements'. Pleasure, Enjoyment, and Human Interaction are the in-your-face Ingredients; the others (Learning, Growth, Attention and Focus, Complexity, and Depth) are more likely to be called upon by you, granting a deeper sense of satisfaction and a greater opportunity to close the gap on Truth, Wisdom, and Happiness. This is partially (perhaps largely) because of the greater efforts and by association the greater rewards inherent in a proactive process. I believe we are potentially more reactive and/or spontaneous with Pleasure/Comfort, Enjoyment, and Human Interaction though these three Ingredients can (and should) be a thoughtful, proactive process whenever possible. The nature of the other Ingredients (I believe) is more conducive to thoughtful planning and appreciation (much like the more subtle senses), though Attention and Focus can at times be a result of 'getting caught up in the moment' and in these times can be a pleasant surprise. It is a fact that the greater the effort, the greater the value placed on the reward(s) or outcome of a particular set of actions or behaviors; thus making the case that proactive efforts are more likely to close the gap on Truth, Wisdom, and Happiness than the reactive efforts more commonly associated with Pleasure and Human Interaction. That is not to state that one should avoid Pleasure/Comfort (tempered by moderation) or Human Interaction as these are valid, necessary, unavoidable, and potentially productive elements; it is only to suggest (again) that one approach all elements with as much careful thought and consideration as is possible given the circumstance.

Sensory input in this empirical existence impacts all aspects of one's search for Happiness and with proper guidance is relevant to all of the aforementioned Ingredients. That guidance begins with understanding, and in that vein it helps to know how sensory input is processed. I'm certain these thoughts are not new, but their organization is, (for me), helpful.

I have identified five pathways through which sensory experience travels in order to influence behaviors, become subject to interpretation, and potentially impact one's character. I believe the art of transforming a sensory experience is accomplished through one or more of the following:

1. primal instinct
2. emotional reaction
3. foolish or creative reflection
4. rational thought
5. intuition

It is interesting to consider various sensory experiences and the path or paths they may take. For example, the process of food preparation/cooking to consumption/eating could potentially run the gamut of all five. Regardless of which pathway(s) the sensory input initially jumps on, transformation must travel through an empirical, cognitive, or transcendental center housed within the individual. And (continuing the cooking analogy) much like the heat in cooking, these internal centers (mind/body/heart/spirit) serve as a catalyst for transformation by reducing the sensory experience into more palatable thoughts, resulting in instinctive, acceptable, or calculated actions and behaviors. Similar or like-minded behaviors over time then identify one's individually, recognizable, consistent demeanor or character. And as one's character solidifies through Learning and Growth, one becomes capable of guiding/controlling the sensory input in order to maintain consistency in behaviors and be true to oneself; or true to one's facade as the case may be.

When I find sensory input controlling or guiding me, more so than I am interpreting and guiding sensory input, there are certain activities I turn to that are helpful in reversing that flow. The following are activities that calm my senses and encourage generative transformations:

• Reading
• Writing
• Cooking
• Music
• Walking
• Swimming

There is a lot of interconnectedness going on in this week's thoughts, with the overriding theme seemingly 'transformation'. From an accumulation of small bits of empirical data to activities, behaviors, and formation of character, via instinctive, emotional, reflective, rational, and intuitive processes, transformation appears to be an unending process flowing in and around all aspects in all directions. I have found it more difficult to control or guide these processes in the midst of numerous and/or overwhelming inputs; hence the need for the activities listed above and the mental structuring of the processes.

I have found myself turning to the calming activities from above frequently of late, and unfortunately have also on occasion turned to mind-numbing, futile, or destructive activities that only provide a short-term illusion of tranquility, (lower-case) happiness, or control. I need to avoid short-term illusion and oblivion, and continue my quest for Truth, Wisdom, and Happiness via the more thoughtful, structured, proactive, and constructive processes that actually contribute to the search. I need to consistently and continuously heighten my awareness; and that is my (contributory) hope with each new, weekly post.

The 2 scenarios below are from the post 'Risking Happiness':

1. I give to and take from the moment in the active hope that it will propel me into a larger, deeper future. Or ...
2. I hibernate in the moment from the paralyzing fear that my future will be deemed inadequate.

Two weeks ago I admitted spending more time of late in scenario #2 above, than in scenario #1. I examined my hesitancy to take risks, discovered that the judgments being handed down to me were from me, and ended the post 'thinking about' the value of innovation vs. the fear of risk.

(Note - by paralyzing fear, I am referring to stagnation, fear of risk, and lack of empirical growth; not a fear of everyday social interaction / work / life.)

Throughout this site I have encouraged everyone to question everything. I have discovered that living this philosophy may at times induce one to question oneself to the point of numbing uncertainty or paralyzing fear (as defined above). I have extended these thoughts to the following question: If I recognize/acknowledge/understand that I do not have all the answers and that I know very little, then what have I got to lose? If I am to play the fool anyway, the audience should get their money's worth; right? It seems appropriate to insert here this excerpt from the previous post 'A Fool for Happiness':

"Yea, though I walk through the Valley of the Shadow of Fools
I will fear no folly; for thou art fools with me.
Thy nod and thy laugh, they comfort me.
We preparest a stable disparity in the presence of mass obedience.
They disjoint our heads with feckless toil; yet my thoughts runneth over.

Surely I shall follow Wisdom and Truth all the days of my life,
and I will seek the house of Happiness forever."

It is up to you to decide if thou art a fool with me, or if thou art they.

I want this discovery to be liberating but it will not be until I make it tangible through behaviors. I have verbalized assault plans to significant others in order to hold myself accountable. I intend to conquer this fear of risk through positive, ethical actions in the active hope that the result will be empirical growth through innovation. And if the result is that I am deemed a fool, then I have not lost ground. It is more truthful to be recognized as a fallen fool than to blend in as a faceless phony.

Now I need to walk the walk; or trip and fall on my face, as the case may be ...