hopelesshappiness.com

We are all individually irrelevant ... unimportant ... inconsequential - it is a harsh fact. So how does one get past this fact and continue to close the gap on Truth, Wisdom, and Happiness? I believe it must begin with inner transcendence.

Transcendental - That which is Beyond.

Inner Transcendence - That which emanates from within and reaches Beyond.

I will backtrack and qualify just a little: in this physical realm, if one is lucky, one shares mutual relevance with a few and may have some consequence in specific settings or sets of circumstances. However, as illustrated in the old analogy of removing your hand from a bucket of water, if one is removed from a setting, a set of circumstances, or removed entirely from this physical realm, this may cause a few ripples, but the medium soon settles and Life goes on. The fact remains that in the grand scheme, we are all relatively irrelevant.

This all sounds brutal, harsh, and somewhat depressing, but I don't believe it is. I believe it relates directly to previous discussions that have expanded upon the concepts of Exoteric Goodness, Inner Peace, and the thoughts of Epictetus who said that nothing can truly be taken from us. He maintained that inner peace begins when we stop saying "I have lost it" and instead say "it has been returned to where it came from." The world owes us nothing, so when we are able we should take great care of those things the world temporarily allows us to have and we should live each day adding to a legacy that emphasizes anonymous Goodness for the sake of Goodness. This perspective is liberating. It is the embodiment of the transcendental nesting within the empirical. Regardless of one's specific transcendental beliefs, day-to-day existence in this physical realm is given meaning through a dichotomy of harsh reality and ineffable/intuitive spirituality.

Please see this post (Happiness Beyond Words) for a more thorough examination of the process of recognizing transcendental, and this post (Internalizing Happiness) for a more thorough explanation of why I tend to believe that transcendence originates from within.

I have stated several times throughout these posts that I strongly believe one should 'Do No Harm'. Last week I touched on this (rather clumsily), so this week I would like to revisit the concept and refine my interpretation in the context of inner transcendence.

First I'd like to restate that I strongly believe one should 'Do No Physical Harm'. I believe this applies to people, nature, and all things physical of, from, or for this world. One may argue that there may be occasions when one has to choose the lesser of evils (for example harm or be harmed) but I believe that for most of us these occasions are very rare to non-existent and more often serve as an excuse for running roughshod and losing sight of that line (mentioned last week) between personal impact and doing harm.

Secondly I would like to examine the impact uninhibited truthfulness has and differentiate between 'doing harm' (personal, intentional, or vengeful) and the 'potential for harm'. Each one of us can choose our reaction to another's input regardless of the degree of uninhibited truthfulness. Common reactions to outside input include the following:

1. one can analyze and disagree thus eliminating or mitigating harm;
2. one can determine a degree of agreement and work through a reasoned, empathetic process of change;
3. one can simply ignore another's uninhibited truthfulness; or
4. one can become defensive and/or go on the offensive thus creating a potential for harm.

And once one party reacts, the initiating party must then choose their reaction. If one gains a reputation for defensive or offensive reaction (or input) it encourages a mirrored reaction or no reaction at all; which in turn increases potential for harm and decreases potential for learning, growth, change, and progress. Bottom Line - Uninhibited Truthfulness should not be discouraged based on the 'potential for harm' because in so doing the potential for growth is also discouraged and likely eliminated. Still, one must carefully examine and understand their personal motives to ensure they are not intentionally seeking harm in the guise of uninhibited truthfulness.

Next, I want to examine hope, fear, and comfort zones. Everywhere I look, I see roving gangs of hopes, fears, and comfort zones looking for every opportunity to assault our sensibilities and beat down uninhibited truthfulness. Fear of reprisal; fear of the unknown; fear of loss; fear of pain and adversity; fear of fear. Fear is a bully. Hope is debilitating in that it encourages inactivity. Comfort zones lull us to sleep and encourage apathy. Working together they are formidable and they Do Harm. But we can battle back.

French Revolutionary Rabaut Saint-Etienne was credited with saying, "Our history is not our destiny." He paid for his revolutionary thinking with his head; guillotined in 1793. There are times today when (figuratively speaking) one may fear being handed his head and therefore does not speak out. Yet, as stated above, if we do not speak out we are doing a disservice to progress. It was French Philosopher Rene Descartes who initially proposed the idea of 'tabula rasa' or 'blank slate' which encourages/requires rejection of all preconceptions and inherited beliefs deriving from tradition. One should doubt, question, and contemplate/analyze all ideas without distinction. It was also Rene Descartes who said 'Cogito Ergo Sum' - 'I Think therefore I Am.' Hopes, Fears, and Comfort Zones smother independent thought and demoralize individual being.

It feels like there is a lot said in this week's thoughts - from irrelevance to inner transcendence to exoteric goodness and inner peace to 'Do No Harm' to uninhibited truthfulness to doing harm vs. potential for harm to hopes, fears, and comfort zones to the French Revolution, Descartes, and the meaning of existence. I may let this simmer, and expand or refine these thoughts next week.

One final thought ...

To live wholly one must immerse oneself in the harsh reality and ineffable/intuitive spirituality of daily existence by avoiding hopes, fears, and comfort zones through inner transcendence. Easier said than done, I know; but I think it may be pretty important ...

I would be closer to Wisdom if I could perceive me as others perceive me. Therefore, I must be as open and functionally transparent as circumstances allow.

If I err, I believe it should be on the side of transcendent transparency; consequences (impacting me) be damned.

(Qualification - 'Doing Harm' and 'Doing No Harm' in the context of everything below refers to non-physical conflict and disagreement potentially resulting in non-physical pain and/or adversity.)

I believe within the scope of this personal transparency there is a razor thin line between consequences impacting me and consequences doing harm to others. I am more likely to cross this line when I am thoughtlessly being selfish. And I am more likely to have a negative reaction to consequences impacting me when I am thoughtlessly being selfish.

I am selfish.

I believe if I do harm to another it (at least temporarily) casts a shadow on their perception of me, thus (at least temporarily) skewing my interpretation of how they perceive me or eliminating that potential for interpretation entirely. If this happens, the possibilities for mutual learning and growth are stultified. I want to believe that this change from possibility to futility occurs because harming others casts an 'all-encompassing' shadow that filters or blocks Light, and Exoteric Goodness, and Inner Peace, and Truth, and Wisdom, and Happiness. But maybe I believe that futility is merely a warning sign cautioning one to 'stay the path' so as not to be lost; which can also mean disagreement and/or an occasional battle.

Battles can leave casualties.

So under what circumstances do I consider the risk of crossing that line (between personal impact and harming others) worthwhile?

...

At this point it is a challenge for me to remember that the original goal/purpose is to approach wisdom by gaining insight from other's perceptions of me. It is much easier for me to turn a given set of circumstances and make it about others, by becoming condescending and/or judgmental. But if I admit up front that it is possible I could be wrong, and if I battle with 'reason', then I believe there is a better chance that I will not come across as condescending or judgmental.

We all do harm to others. It is the nature of the beast.

Perhaps it is not possible to do no harm when practicing transparency.

Perhaps futility is also a sign that marks a situation in need of adversity.

Change is reality. Adversity is not only unavoidable but also necessary for change and growth.

Perhaps for these reasons it is okay to occasionally cross the line into 'doing harm' territory as long as it is done with reason and respect, and as long as one does not venture so deep into the territory that one loses sight of the line they have crossed.

Great thinkers throughout history have examined dialectics which (based on my limited understanding) is a method of argument, (using reason), for solving disagreement and perpetuating change. Though it is more complex than the description below and (according to many schools of thought) flawed, for my purposes Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel's presentation of thesis (proposition or circumstance), antithesis (reaction), and synthesis (resolution/reconciliation) best characterizes the unavoidable and necessary process of improvement, progress, and change.

If my mind is reasoned, empathetic, and focused on this goal - improvement and progress - then it is not only okay, but also necessary to resolutely pursue synthesis.

Twas the night before Christmas, when I was a kid

Now my memories are stirring; nostalgia undid

My letter was posted to Santa with flare,

With hopes that were eagerly floating on air.

All snuggled in bed, unable to sleep

While visions of joy danced frenzied and deep.

All warm and fuzzy in flannel pj's

I settled and drifted, mind starting to glaze

When out in the hall there arose such a clatter

I sprang from the bed to see what was the matter

Away from the top bunk I hit with a crash

Picked myself up and made a mad dash.

The hall light on the crest of my father's bald head

Gave the lustre of midday to objects widespread.

When, what to my wondering eyes did I see

But my brother and an unwrapped gift on his knee.

With a wink and a grin and a nod from my Dad

I knew in a moment, that he wasn't mad.

More rapid than eagles, with gentle aplomb

He picked us up and said "Let's not tell Mom."

Now, Wrapping! now, Ribbons! now Tape and a Bow!

Fold this flap! Tape that flap! Now no one will know!

To the base of the tree! To a hug in the hall!

Now off to bed! Off to bed! Off to bed all!

As three thieves that after wild shenanigans fly,

When they meet with an obstacle, secret and sly,

So with wrapping awry the conspirators flew,

In hindsight, I think that Mom probably knew.

And now, in a twinkling, I am an old man

With grown kids and grandkid; an interstate clan.

As I draw to a 'Night Before Christmas' encore,

My hopes are eagerly floating once more.

They are dressed all in tinsel, and silver, and gold,

Expectancy shining and thoughts that are bold;

A bundle of joys and each day a fresh start,

I look like a grandad just opening his heart.

My eyes -- how they twinkle! My dimples how merry!

My cheeks are like roses, my nose like a cherry!

My droll little mouth, drawn up like a bow

And the beard of my chin, flecked white like the snow;

To the grandbabe held tight, I aim to bequeath

The joy and the hope, and the gumption beneath

A broad sense of goodness, a well-rounded poise

A smile and a laugh, and lots of neat toys.

She's chubby and plump, a right jolly young elf

Yet I know she will grow in spite of herself.

A think back to when my own kids were young

Inspires what's now a new song to be sung.

To speak but few words, and go straight to the heart

We'll all fill our days and we'll all do our part.

And laying the truth alongside of this thought

Some days it is tough and some days it is not.

So spring from your thoughts and to friends give a whistle

And through life we'll all fly like the down of a thistle

But for this one moment we'll bask in this Light;

HAPPY CHRISTMAS TO ALL, AND TO ALL A GOOD-NIGHT

A conformist is a fool for blithely and unquestioningly conforming.

A non-conformist is a fool because the conformist says so; and (unfortunately) majority perception is reality.

So the non-conformist fool can either remain as such, or become a conformist fool, or persuade the conformist fool to blithely accept an alternate reality; and if successful with the latter, is again in danger of becoming a conformist fool; or worse yet, being a leader of conformist fools.

Wouldn't it be better, if instead of fools, we all became skeptics? I am not advocating revolution; I am urging thoughtful challenge.

If we were all non-conformists thinking for ourselves, there would be no conformists to label us as fools.

Conformist fools laugh at aspects of their conformity. Non-conformist fools laugh with delight at new discoveries, and also laugh at aspects of conformist's conformity.

I believe, in varying degrees and at various times, one is both a conformist and a non-conformist; and we are all fools.

Charlie Chaplin said, "Failure is unimportant. It takes courage to make a fool of yourself."

And to be a fool is to invite ridicule, which creates adversity, which in turn leads to learning and growth, ultimately allowing one to close the gap on Truth, Wisdom, and Happiness.

Often one chooses to avoid the pain, and conform. William Blake said, "The fool who persists in his folly will become wise." By definition, 'folly' is a lack of understanding or sense. So if one pursues folly one should gain understanding and sense. Isn't this also the definition of 'learning'? One starts out innocent; naive; a fool; and in some respects forever stays that way. An admitted fool is generally less a fool than a fool in denial. I say 'generally' because some people seem so very sure of themselves; and it is not my place to judge; though it is my place (and your place) to think, and to question.

I wish I could more often, more willingly and more readily embrace the scorn and the pain of playing the non-conformist fool. But instead, I am too often the conformist fool; sometimes I tell myself it's for self-preservation, other times because I may believe it to be the lesser of the evils, and still other times it just seems easier to let things go - pick your battles - go home, drink a beer, and watch 'Walking Dead' - give in - give up.

No! I may still watch 'Walking Dead' - but I will not give up!

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.

Leftover thoughts from last week ...

So it seems that in various ways throughout these posts I have equated 'beyond words' with transcendental. I believe that is an oversimplification. 'Beyond Words' is an important identifier for 'transcendental possibility' and may be one's first clue, but it is by no means the only characteristic, and by itself does not establish one's transcendental reality. I believe to qualify as transcendental, a concept should involve intuition, a nagging sense of urgency to understand, a recognition of persistence, a recognition of potential distance from empirical, and a demand for attention, as well as the aforementioned difficulty in describing with words. If there is no loss in translation, a concept is no longer transcendental; it has become empirical.

It appears that I am seeking an empirical understanding of concepts that by definition cannot be understood empirically. Yet knowing that Truth and Wisdom and Happiness will never be completely empirical serves as a catalyst to even more fervently seek connections and formalize concepts, and then find common ground for this transcendental possibility. I think it is what humankind has been doing through all of recorded history, and probably long before.

New discoveries this week ...

"Human salvation lies in the hands of the creatively maladjusted." - Martin Luther King, Jr.

Studies consistently show that 90% of us believe we are well adjusted and above average in terms of one's subjective sense of well-being. It seems skewed that 90% of us rate ourselves above the other 50%, but I don't believe it is skewed. Instead, I would say that 40% of us are creatively maladjusted; or perhaps all 90% of us are creatively maladjusted 40% of the time; or perhaps somewhere in between. These scenarios (for me) are preferable to being in the 10% whose subjective sense of well-being is consistently impaired.

This takes me back to the beginnings of this site and Relative Momentary Happiness (RMH) vs. Consistent Long-Lasting Happiness (CLH). Reality demands an accounting of pain and adversity. Survival requires some creative accounting. I believe we all keep two sets of books - one to show the public authorities (friends, family, co-workers, and in varying dergrees, oneself); and one esoteric set of books locked away and hidden, at times even from oneself.

To acknowledge the existence of this second set of books creates an understanding of the reality of Relative Momentary Happiness (RMH) vs. the pipe dream of Consistent Long-Lasting Happiness (CLH). To privately study this second set of books will reveal the elusive nature of Truth, Wisdom, and Happiness, yet allow an occasional fleeting glimpse and create a potential to close the gap. To publicly incorporate various aspects of this second set of books in one's daily thoughts and actions is noteworthy.

These thoughts and this analogy help me to understand the necessity of being creatively maladjusted. I believe the fact that we keep two sets of books reflects the 'maladjusted' aspect of this concept. I believe the selective public display of the second set of books reflects the 'creative' aspect of this concept. I believe ongoing, extensive study and contemplation of this second set of books will extend one's creative capacity and ultimately create a potential for human salvation. (I believe human salvation can occur on varying scales ranging from oneself to a family unit to a community and all the way to 'all' of humankind.) ... This seems like a good stopping point, but I have another question ...

... What is salvation? ...

Above I have (loosely) described how to recognize the inevitability of being maladjusted and how to apply creativity; but to what end? It would be easy to equate 'Truth, Wisdom, and Happiness' to 'Salvation' and be done, and that may be where I end up; but first I would like to dig deeper in and around the concept of Human Salvation.

Salvation is defined as 'the state of being saved or protected from harm or risk.' It often carries with it a religious connotation, but I'd like to explore strictly from an empirical perspective, because I believe that is the intent in the Martin Luther King, Jr. quote.

I don't believe one can be saved from the risk of pain and adversity, but ... perhaps one can be protected from serious or permanent harm by learning that Consistent Long-Lasting Happiness is unattainable. Many of those who know this, know it because they have been subjected to Life's hardships. By experiencing and recognizing pain and adversity, one (in a sense) is immunized against future pain and adversity; at least to an extent that can mitigate its impact. And for those who are privileged and shielded from Life's hardships, one can only hope the privilege continues.

So with this in mind, a realistic, empirical, working definition of 'Human Salvation' revolves around education.

Would mandatory hardship training be too creative? Or too maladjusted? (An exemption could be provided to those who have had naturally-occurring hardships.)

And if hardship training was considered to be impractical, how then could one who isn't interested or doesn't care be forced to learn empathy and compassion?

Perhaps I'm not thinking far enough outside the box. Hardship training would be a hard sell. Why would anyone voluntarily subject themselves to pain, adversity, or even mild discomfort? Many of us work very hard as it is to avoid (and/or ignore) these things now.

So here is a new thought - How about we take advantage of current knowledge (such as neuroscience and mirror neurons) and current creative talents and technologies (such as film production and delivery) to personalize some 'entertaining' hardship training that will also hardwire some empathy and compassion. Perhaps the 'entertainment' value would help to sell the idea of 'Dark' and 'Light' to a narcissistic, entitled, culture in the midst of a 'happy revolution' that is creating and perpetuating unrealistic expectations of 'Light with no Dark'.

It would still be a hard sell, but - We Have To Say "Enough!"

First, we have to recognize and identify Dark and Light to everyone, even when it seems they are not listening.

Then we have to strap on our propeller beanies of creative maladjustment and adopt a strategy of vocal nonviolent resistance towards rainbows and lollipops; especially when rainbows and lollipops are the only invitees.

We cannot drag 'well-adjusted' or 'oblivious' people kicking and screaming into the Dark. They would just close their eyes and expect to see Light each time they opened them; and eventually they would; because we could not in good conscience keep them in the Dark indefinitely until they acknowledged and recognized it. Harmful salvation is not possible.

But is nonviolent resistance and leading by example enough?

I suppose it has to be. Mahatma Ghandi and Martin Luther King, Jr. made great strides by integrating this concept of non-conforming, nonviolent, vocal resistance with their natural, sincere empathy and compassion.

Human Salvation - To protect one from serious or permanent harm through recognition and understanding of both 'Dark' and 'Light'.

Martin Luther King, Jr. said, "Human salvation lies in the hands of the creatively maladjusted." I might say, "Human salvation lies in the potential to convince humankind that we are 'all' creatively maladjusted." With this widespread recognition, the synergy created will bring us even closer to Truth, Wisdom, and Happiness.

Hardship Training ... think about it ...