hopelesshappiness.com

Have Fun! What does that mean to most people? Does fun relate to Truth and Wisdom? And if so, how? Is 'fun' a synonym for 'Enjoyment as defined in the context of the Periodic Happiness Table of Elements on this site? And if not, how do they differ?

To refresh memories (including mine) Enjoyment is the realization of the joy of challenge. I believe there are many people who would not immediately equate fun with challenge. Yet I also believe that many of them, after some consideration, would agree that there is a connection.

Think about how fun is perceived. It could be a night on the town, a meal out, shopping, a movie, a play, music, dancing, having friends in, or other forms of straightforward human interaction. For some it involves participation in games, competitions, or sports. Even spectator sports offer the challenge of following, anticipating, and second-guessing strategies. For others fun could be solitary activities such as a night in with a good book or a movie or the latest technology-based challenge of personal interest.

Some of these examples may appear to put more emphasis on relaxation, than others. I would argue though that relaxation (in varying degrees and applicabilities) is a common element of fun and enjoyment across the board. Intense physical exertion often leads to a 'zone' that focuses and relaxes the mind. Intense mental exercise can do exactly the same thing. And there are many examples of physical relaxation that also meet one's personal requirements for fun.

Requiring the common elements then of challenge and relaxation, there are innumerable examples of fun and enjoyment. I believe most of these examples (given and not given) can, with some effort, avoid an unthinking, zombie-like state of mind. If we are not stretching ourselves in some way, it is simply not as much fun; perhaps no fun at all. But there are some who would disagree and maintain that being out-of-control, with no rules or parameters, can be loads of fun; and is an extreme type of challenge. They might say that in the midst of savagery, debauchery, or (the tamer sounding) wild times, one experiences the kind of uninhibited freedom and fun that is not possible within parameters; but upon participating in this kind of 'fun' ... in hindsight ... (speaking from some experience) ... I often feel (at the least) foolish, embarrassed, or undignified, and (at the worst) remorseful and ashamed. Especially if I have crossed the tenet / belief to Do No Harm. By definition, excess is excessive. Letting oneself go is not the same as stretching oneself.

Based on these interpretations, I believe the connotation of enjoyment is more refined than that of fun, and the connotation of fun is more spontaneous than that of enjoyment; yet it still shows considerable synonymity in the middle ground. However if the fun becomes harmful or too spontaneous it may not be enjoyable, and if the enjoyment becomes too refined or constrictive it may not be much fun. Personal taste may dictate spontaneity, limitations, and refinement, but 'Do No Harm' should be a Universal. How often after someone's feelings are hurt do we hear from someone else (or think to ourselves) "I was only having fun." Of course I remember this more from childhood, but perhaps we are just more careful as adults. I still observe and (yes, even occasionally) participate in cautious denigration of the us-them variety, that is not meant to harm a specific individual, but ...

Wow! I just reread up to this point, and it seems I've taken a lot of the fun out of fun. It also seems that for my purposes (and according to my personal taste) enjoyment is fun, but fun is not always enjoyable. Some would turn that last statement around. But then, I am old and stodgy; not to mention mean and surly.

So where does this leave us? Perhaps one could say that a combination of personal taste, challenge, and relaxation determines fun. And if fun 'Does No Harm' then it contributes to one's periodic need to recharge. And the resulting energy boost from recharging can lead to further Learning and Growth, which in turn assists in closing the gap on Truth, Wisdom, and Happiness. This is a common theme I have previously visited, but being the stodgy, gruff, serious, surly old man that I am, I should revisit the concept more frequently. It is an aspect of Happiness I don't take seriously enough, often enough.

As I write this last line, I am preparing to go to a Halloween party ... With ('them') In-Laws ... I will make a serious, concerted effort to Have Fun!

Am I fighting for Happiness? Or am I fighting against Happiness? Or is Happiness fighting me? Or perhaps I am fighting with Happiness (side-by-side) against common foes. Whatever the distinction, it is a battle.

Perhaps it is a combination of all of the above, hence the ever-changing, concurrent battlefronts requiring multiple tactical strategies.

Keeping in mind that my definition of Happiness is Truth and Wisdom (which are unattainable Ideals), this week I feel we (Happiness and I) are fighting a common foe. The foe is the limitations imposed upon each of us by one's physical vulnerabilities.

It is difficult to search for Truth and Wisdom in the best of empirical times. And many would claim that the distractions of physical pain or discomfort (empirical realities) would add further complications and detract from one's ability to reason.

I might argue. I agree there is frustration that impacts one's ability to reason, but I believe that frustration is over other's inability to suddenly see or understand what is important. It is this frustration then that is misinterpreted as a direct result of the physical pain and discomfort. The challenge to overcome is not about pain; it is about perspective. The pain changes the perspective, and the perspective changes the person.

When forced to confront one's mortality, empirical reality is actually simplified. No matter how steadfast the empiricist, when seriously contemplating mortality, thoughts turn transcendental. I believe this is not only additional confirmation (following up last week's post) of transcendental unknowables, but also rids one's daily routine of impurities, thus allowing for focus on what is important.

Regardless of your philosophical leanings, at the end we come back to Exoteric Goodness and Inner Peace, as a result of one's personal, lifelong search for Truth and Wisdom.

I had a thought this morning that I am unable to describe in words. I will attempt to describe the associated feeling(s). It felt warm and right. It elicited inner peace and calm. It felt compassionate and understanding. I am trying to hold on to these feelings by holding on to (as closely as I can identify) the origin of the thought. From its origin it grew and filled a void; and has since shrunk; but is still identifiable as a pulsating, warm, glowing core in the center of the void.

The origin of the thought had to do with mutual inconsequence; the relationship between interdependence and unimportance; or perhaps more accurately, knowing that what matters, doesn't really matter, even though it does. As this thought grew, and then (rather quickly) dissipated, the contradictions also grew more contrary and troublesome, yet still with a warm and peaceful center; hence my difficulty in finding words to explain.

So where am I going from here? Perhaps to the aforementioned void. I suppose the contradictions, followed by the examination and analysis, may have helped to fill some space, but why is there a void to begin with? Obviously I feel I am missing or I have lost something.

... I got busy with Life and a day has gone by. To paraphrase the Righteous Brothers, "I've lost that lovin' feeling." Yet the void does not seem as cavernous, maybe because Life got in the way and filled some space; wheras early yesterday was quiet and I was contemplative. I'm thinking this void is always there, but is accepting of most anything (from mind-fluff trvialities to the most serious philosophical ruminations) to fill its space. The choice of what to fill it with, is mine.

Mind-fluff does not leave me warm, calm, and compassionate, but is less strenuous. Serious inner contemplation can run the gamut from painful reckoning to peaceful pondering, but (most often through the pain of process) allows for the possibility of growth.

(I believe) fluff is inevitable. (I believe) a contemplative Life dominated by fluff is inexcusable. (I believe) the empirical reality of Life (specifically my reactive actions and behaviors) can easily be dominated by fluff. (I believe) the empirical reality of Life can be enriched by being proactive. (I believe) the empirical reality of Life can be made more meaningful through serious inner contemplation.

So all these thoughts and beliefs lead me to (or am I jumping to?) the conclusion that this human desire/need to fill a void confirms the absence of knowledge; which (in my mind) is another way of saying that the ever-present vigilance of a void confirms the fact of transcendental unknowables. I say transcendental because we occasionally (in our mind's eye) catch an unmeasurable, undescribable, fleeting glimpse of an unknowable; (as I did yesterday). And if we cannot somehow physically, empirically connect it to this world - if it is misty, vague, haunting, ineffable, or simply beyond words - then ...

There are some who would argue that we can only know, or have the potential to know, that which is of this empirical reality. Therefore the unknowables are actually undiscovered knowables, and given time to evolve we will eventually discover everything.

I would rebut by saying that the void is always present and has always been present. One may fill day-to-day existence with empirical reality and fluff, thus ignoring transcendental considerations, but the point is - we are filling the void. The fact that we can talk intelligently about transcendental considerations and an emptiness that needs to be filled, and the fact that we lay awake at night wanting more and contemplating how to fill the next day in order to get more (even when we cannot define 'more'), and the fact that (both awake and asleep) we dream, confirms that there is something beyond my mortal grasp.

These arguments, in both directions, are not new. And all of them have certainly been argued more clearly and more intelligently by many of history's greatest thinkers. It is an age-old debate and all I can add to it, as a matter of fact, is that yesterday morning, for a fleeting, indescribable moment, I did not feel empty - or fluffy.

Continuing the line of thought from last week's post Tracking Happiness - I still maintain that the reality of experience and the pursuit of 'Higher Good' should be within sight of each other and interdependent, yet distinct, allowing for synergy and concurrent progress along parallel tracks. If an experience or an 'Ideal' merges and becomes an obstacle to the other, then one of them should be made 'more' (or 'less') important in order that one will fall safely behind, thus avoiding a dangerous and damaging collision.

Alternatively, (last week) I suggested widening the road or constructing a new parallel track for one of them to safely merge into. I'm not yet sure how to go about that, so I'll start with some initial (single-track) thoughts exploring apathy vs. acceptance as that may help. I think I may at times get the two confused; or perhaps there is some overlap; or perhaps I am just too stubborn (or stupid) to understand.

"Accept the things you cannot change." I have heard this my whole life and though it appears to be sound advice, what I hear is "stop caring - don't fight - give up." I have difficulty accepting difficulties no matter how difficult. The sentiment 'to accept things I cannot change' is typically followed by the encouragement to acquire 'the courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference.' In it's earliest incarnations some research says that 'the courage to change' was written/quoted before 'acceptance' which (to me) is more agreeable, for obvious reasons. We must first try change, and if unsuccessful, then (I believe) we should try, try again instead of moving right to acceptance. I have seldom (if ever) reached the 'acceptance' phase and as for that final phase, I will never Know enough to claim Wisdom.

So with this perspective (attitude?), I will never accept anything as is. Change is reality and reality is change, and though at times I may step back and re-evaluate I refuse to accept the status quo or stasis. I am realistic enough to know my piddling protestations may not have much impact and my search for Truth and Wisdom will always fall short, but I also know that there is some impact (especially with persistence) and I will continue to close the gap (though often only infinitesimally) on Truth and Wisdom; regardless, I am compelled.

Yet I can hear the masses clamoring in favor of acceptance. So what am I missing? I'll dig deeper ...

I have looked at this from several different angles, and I still may be missing something, but for me acceptance still means I stop caring so much by making something less important, or it means I have given up, making something inconsequential or lifeless. I am not saying I haven't done these things (I have) but every time I do stop caring so much or give something up, it seems a little piece of me dies along with it. Dramatic? ... Maybe. Childish? ... Perhaps. But I tend to agree with the 18th century philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau who believed that civilization (and I would add maturity as a result) teaches us to pretend to think and feel all sorts of things we do not think and feel, and pretend not to think and feel all sorts of things we do think and feel. Acceptance inhibits uninhibited truthfulness.

So (at least for me) acceptance does nothing towards new construction, but simply makes one reality or Ideal artificially subordinate to another ... Which I guess creates an artificial reality lacking the depth provided by multiple parallel tracks synergistically connected and making concurrent progress.

So here I am - stuck in traffic. In my case a reality is blocking my pursuit of a 'Higher Good'. (And though this seem to be typical for me, in various circumstances I suppose it could be a bottleneck of any combination of empirical and/or transcendental aspirations.) So what happens if I ever-so-slightly increase my speed until I am nudging reality with a bit of uninhibited truthfulness. If the force of the uninhibited truthfulness is too great I could cause a crash with no survivors. But if I alternate between a little space, riding reality's bumper, and gentle nudges, perhaps reality will be encouraged to gradually slide over, naturally creating a wider track and (once we are side-by-side) ultimately two parallel tracks. (I realize this sounds a bit 'Sybil-ish' as it is my Ideal and my reality, but it does effectively and affably portray the internal and external perspectives of both transcendental and empirical experience.)

In theory this sounds good - Uninhibited truthfulness in moderate doses, to safely construct parallel tracks. In practice - we'll see ...

It doesn't feel though, like that's enough ...

Thinking about the situation, I realize that I cannot lose sight of the mutual respect necessary for any progress to be made. I have to ground my pursuit of an Ideal in the context of the current reality and the current perspective of history to help me understand (and respect) potential obstacles. (Some philosophical thought has suggested that history changes each day based on today's changing historical perspective and interpretation. I agree.)

Thoughts about mutual respect between the transcendental and the empirical lead to thoughts about inner peace, or at the very least, an inner calm - Perhaps this (inner calm) is also an acceptable definition of acceptance - biding one's time in a difficult situation, faithfully recognizing and acting on every opportunity, and thoughtfully creating opportunities, to perpetuate positive change. So maybe in this sense I could temporarily live with acceptance while waiting for and creating construction opportunities.

Additionally persistence must be mentioned once again as an aspect of the construction project that, along with skeptical scrutiny, will ensure structural stability. Skeptical scrutiny must be applied evenly to all considerations internal and external, while persistence should be applied as needed to fortify irresolute frailties.

Looking back, I have identified five essential components of construction:

1. Uninhibited Truthfulness.
2. Respect.
3. Inner Calm.
4. Persistence.
5. Skeptical Scrutiny.

I have previously stated (consistently in other posts) that I believe the transcendental trumps the empirical. After this week my thoughts may be evolving. Perhaps it is more accurate to say they support one another as they run side-by-side; and it is this 'side-by-side' that (for me) is critical for working towards the ultimate goal of interdependence and shared success between empirical reality and my relentless pursuit of (unattainable) perfections. By utilizing the five components above, with (productive) uninhibited truthfulness as the main building block, respect and inner calm as bonding agents, and persistence and skeptical scrutiny to maintain integrity, I believe we have a chance.

I feel compelled to (once again) visit this James Baldwin quote: "People who shut their eyes to reality simply invite their own destruction, and anyone who insists on remaining in a state of innocence long after that innocence is dead turns himself into a monster."

This week I am referring to me. In a nutshell, I am struggling with conflicting goals - On the one hand I want to pursue unattainable ideals, but on the other hand I also need to recognize/acknowledge the fact/reality that they are unattainable; and then if I decide to continue that pursuit I must find a way to reconcile it (the pursuit) with certain, current realities.

So far, my attempts at reconciliation have amounted to the solace offered by a Kantian division of experience and transcendental reasoning. The difficulty with this thinking is exactly that; mere thoughts do not change the experience. Thoughts may alter the interpretation of an experience, but (I believe) should only do so temporarily to help us through that experience. If an adverse set of circumstances persist for a longer period of time I will possibly reach a point where I feel martyred and/or helpless, which could begin a downward spiral. There are some that can shut their eyes to reality and innocently proclaim that everything is rainbows and lollipops, but due to my strong belief in uninhibited truthfulness to oneself, I cannot ignore pain or adversity. So if I feel any hint of martyrdom/helplessness, and I refuse to play mind games with myself, then it appears that it is time to change my circumstances. But ...

What if we add a parallel track of pursuing a related but separate 'Ideal' that would be impacted (or possibly derailed) by changing the adverse circumstances as described in the paragraph above? How do I choose between improving empirical experience and pursuing a 'Higher Good'?

I suppose if the reality becomes debilitating then the decision is made to change the circumstances, thus potentially sacrificing the pursuit of the interdependent 'Higher Good'. I have explored the possibility of substituting a different 'Higher Good' (for the one sacrificed) that would be more compatible with the new set of circumstances, but that feels like apples and oranges; (but may still feel better than the complete loss of a 'Higher Good'). So is the solution that's left, to find a new way of accomplishing the same 'Higher Good'? With new circumstances, is that even possible? In some cases it may be, but it seems unlikely; (especially in this specific instance). So if it is not possible, I am back to choosing between improving empirical experience and pursuing a 'Higher Good'.

New Thought - Perhaps what I deem the 'Higher Good' is not actually the 'Higher Good'. Perhaps the 'Higher Good' is actually the empirical experience. Obviously this is not a 'new' thought (in the history of philosophical thought) and may make perfect sense to some, but for me it is counter-intuitive. Nonetheless, let me think about it ...

Why are we in this world and entrusted with individual humanity? It is obviously meaningful and important, but should it trump pursuit of unattainable Perfections? Thus far I have maintained that the unknowable should have the upper hand, but in this specific set of circumstances my growing ineffectiveness is beginning to impact effectiveness on other tracks, thus driving me to consider giving up / giving in to empirical considerations. Is this a hint that my experiential humanity is on a par with or perhaps occasionally superior to transcendental reasoning and the pursuit of Perfections? Or ...

Following the analogy of parallel tracks, perhaps this struggle is due to the merging of these two tracks and the sudden road rage inherent in this scenario. If my experience has become an obstacle, my pursuit of a 'Higher Good' is pissed. Road rage is a result of depersonalization, so perhaps the solution here starts with respect. I need to back off and re-evaluate options. I need to give experience its due and concede that (at least for the moment) it is on even footing (the same track) as my higher Ideal. I need to figure a way to either widen the road or construct a new parallel track to avoid road closure and allow for concurrent progress.

As I am wont to do, I have painted a defined, conceptual picture, but is it theoretical BS (mind games) or are there practical applications? I'm not sure I know (or will know for a few days or weeks) the answer to this question as it applies to this situation, but these thoughts have helped me to see that for maximum effectiveness these tracks should be separate and distinct. I have been laboring under the false conception that they were distinct and separate, and perhaps I needed to join them. But no - That is the problem - like Siamese twins I need to separate them and hope they both survive.

So carrying these thoughts a bit further, I am proposing change that if not executed perfectly could kill, maim, or permanently scar a 'Higher Good' and/or a current reality. Obviously both of these tracks are important to me or I wouldn't struggle so. In my mind the transcendental will always trump the empirical, therefore it seems the least invasive change would be to make the conflicting reality less important; or the 'Higher Good' more important. I believe this could be actual change and not just interpretation or mind games. It makes sense to start there. And if I am successful, it makes some sense that it may end there as well. I will see ...