hopelesshappiness.com

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 ...

The purpose of searching for Truth and Wisdom in this empirical existence is to close the gap on (upper-case) Happiness; i.e. that Happiness that transcends this lifetime; that Happiness that one can only catch the occasional fleeting glimpse, of. Though (in their purest forms) Truth, Wisdom, and Happiness are unattainable, functionally speaking, the fact that we are consciously aware of their existence encourages the quest; which in turn adds meaning and purpose to this life through learning and growth, and the addition of complexity and depth. (I believe there must be an ultimate uncaused first cause - I will call it, Perfection.) So the likelihood of upper-case Happiness is relegated to fleeting, relative moments, but the functional likelihood of upper-case Happiness, as it operates in this empirical reality, is defined by the usefulness of that search which in turn depends upon the focus of the individual and their ability to balance empirical reality with transcendental consideration. Simply put, the difference between Upper-Case Happiness and Operative Upper-Case Happiness is that Operative Upper-Case Happiness is applicable to one's daily existence - (it is utilitarian and more directly related to the search or journey); whereas Upper-Case Happiness is beyond (transcends) one's daily grasp.

With these thoughts I have come up with a theory and formula (very rough draft) that connects one's 'Operative Upper-Case Happiness' (OUCH) with their sense of reality. I do not intend this as a judgment of one's choices that help them through their day, but rather as a learning tool and guide to encourage me to stay within the parameters of reality as defined by the formula and theorizing below. I have set these parameters according to my sense of reality and as I gather data, my sense of reality could slide one way or the other; though I doubt by much. I have only tested this on a handful of people, but so far the results are interesting. Here it is ...

Theory of (lower-case) happiness and reality and its applicabilty to one's search for (upper-case) Happiness; or ThrasH:

'Operative Upper-Case Happiness' = ('Actual Likelihood of Unexpected Setback' / 'Perceived Likelihood of Unexpected Setback') + 'basic everyday lower-case happiness'

OUCH = (ALUS / PLUS) + belch

ALUS = 7.5; always a constant.

PLUS scale is any positive rational number up to and including 20.

belch scale is any positive rational number up to and including 2.

For best results the formula and the ALUS constant should not be revealed until an individual identifies their PLUS # and belch # per the scale parameters and instructions below, by asking the following 2 questions:

1. "On a scale of 0 to 20, (using positive rational numbers, with 20 being the most likely), in any specific given situation how do you perceive the potential likelihood of one or more unexpected setbacks?"
2. "On a scale of 0 to 2 (using positive rational numbers, with 2 being the highest rating), how would you rate your basic everyday good cheer, satisfaction, or happiness; i.e. lower-case happiness? (Note - you should consider the opinions of significant others, and time you spend alone, when answering this question)."

Decimals and fractions are acceptable for both of the scales above.

Conclusion - Successful OUCH depends on a functionally cheerful or functionally skeptical sense of reality. There are other behavior groupings that are functional, but will not encourage a serious search for Truth and Wisdom.

A Functionally Skeptical Perspective is indicated by an OUCH score ranging from 1.65 to 2.0. A Functionally Cheerful Perspective is indicated by an OUCH score of 2.0 to 2.6.

Those individuals within the range of 1.65 to 2.6 are more likely to question the status quo and understand the difference between upper-case Happiness and lower-case happiness as well as the importance of one's search for Truth and Wisdom.

A score above 2.6 indentifies an individual who believes they have (or an individual who does have) more control than is possible or ethically justifiable; and/or one who believes that positive thinking, superiority, entitlement, or other intangibles have considerable, tangible influence, whereas the actual influence is often the product of one's force of personality and their deluded thought; and/or one who is simply not a planner or is somewhat to totally oblivious of reality; (behavior groupings include: obliviously cheerful to obliviously dysfunctional, or a politician to a power-hungry control freak, or a functional narcissist to a dysfunctional narcissist).

A score below 1.65 identifies a person who has an unrealistically strong sense of justice, and/or may believe the world is against them; (behavior groupings include: simply angry, or hatefully dysfunctional, or paranoid).

The formula operates on the premise that the PLUS norms range from 5 to 10, and that the belch norms range from 0.9 to 1.1. Additionally the belch scale (being 10% of the PLUS scale) acknowledges the influence of everyday (lower-case) happiness (good cheer/satisfaction), but only operates as a hiccup (or belch) in its influence on (upper-case) Happiness; yet because of it's ability to widen the range, it has (on an everyday basis) a greater influence than it should have because it distracts one from their search for Truth and Wisdom.

I identified the range of 'Functional' Skepticism/Cheerfulness as 1.65 to 2.6, but would add that I believe it to be healthier, more effective, and more realistic if one were on the lower end of that range.

When evaluating a score, one can focus on the PLUS and belch separately to differentiate between oblivious, controlling, or narcissist, and angry, hatefully dysfunctional, or paranoid. I have not gathered enough data to quantify these characteristics or to even know if this is the entire range of behavioral possibilities.

So far the range of OUCH scores I have gathered run from a low of 1.55 to a high of 3.5 with a significant majority falling in the normal range. The process has triggered interesting conversation and debate, and reminded me that there are those who disagree with the degree of analysis, study, and thought I believe is necessary for inner peace and exoteric goodness. That's okay ... I doubt they change my mind, but it will allow me insight into just how much others disagree. I will continue to gather data and if I am significantly influenced by this new line of thought, you will likely see future posts on the topic. And if it turns out to simply be a passing amusement, or if I find serious or fatal flaws ... it has been a beneficial exercise in thought.