hopelesshappiness.com

I saw a friend buried this week. Keith walked the walk. I will miss him.

Even when faced with mortality, Happiness (one's quest for Truth and Wisdom) cannot die along with the questions. In other words, one must continue to learn from the exoteric goodness left behind and not allow time to heal all wounds. Death is painful to those of us still learning. As time goes by the pain of a friend's death may subside, but in quiet moments one should remember, and laugh, and cry, and learn - and live.

The process of dying is, in actuality, a definition of Living; and Life is painful; (as it should be). Occasionally someone comes along and shows us how to go through this Life - this process of dying - with character, and strength, and nobility. When that happens we should pay attention, and hold onto the joy they have left behind, and embrace the pain inherent in the loss. In this manner, perhaps we too can Live this Life as it is meant to be Lived.

I will continue to Learn, and Hurt, and Hope, and Grow. Thank you Keith, for helping in this process. I will miss you.

I was accused this week of stealing dreams and sowing seeds of hopelessness and discontent. As it was a drive-by diatribe, I did not have the opportunity to respond at the time, so ...

I did indeed indicate that (in context) we should (when asked) present reality and suggest alternatives. I have also previously stated that without Dark there is no Light, and without an understanding of hopelessness there is no hope. It is up to the individual to determine the reliability of other's opinions and (though we do) one should not allow another's view of reality to discourage or stultify. If I am asked, I will respond truthfully.

Imagine the following scenario: you are in Baton Rouge, Louisiana and it begins to snow, (which though somewhat unusual is not unheard of). After the first few normal flakes fall, suddenly most of the falling flakes are purple instead of white. Being in Baton Rouge and knowing the LSU colors (Purple and Gold) your first thought (after Geaux Tigers!) is probably along the lines of who and how? You might also think that it is a pretty cool stunt, but you probably will not think it is magic or miraculous. I suspect you will be fairly certain that there is a logical, empirical, or scientific explanation for this purple snow. Now imagine you are with a young child who has seen snow and knows it is typically white, but based on this experience proclaims this as magic snow from heaven blessing their beloved Tigers before the big game against the hated Crimson Tide. Do you let the child believe in magic, or do you explain that it is more likely a stunt? And if you let it go for the moment and hear later it was a stunt, do you explain it then? And if not, how long do you let them believe in the magic purple snow? Do you wait for them to ask? Does it make a difference if it is your child, a close or distant family member, or a friend or acquaintance's child? Does it make a difference if they ask what you think? As empirical realities pile on, most children eventually figure out Santa Claus, and though it would be nice to forever believe in Santa Claus and Purple Snow this world does not allow it.

So yes - in this context, and in the world of adults, I am a dream bandit sowing seeds of adversity in order to help others (who have asked for my help) to learn and grow. And if they continue to believe in Purple Snow, that is okay. Perhaps they know something I do not, and perhaps I will learn something from them. And we can always hope it truly will give LSU an extra edge. Geaux Tigers!

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 ...