hopelesshappiness.com

This week I want to go back and expand on thoughts (or perhaps just one overriding thought) from this post (Irrelevant Happiness) three weeks ago. Towards the end of that post I casually threw in 'the meaning of existence' as one of the topics or concepts covered. Wow! Looking back, that was a pretty bold claim on my part to presume any sort of insight in that regard. I have to examine, pull apart, and dig deeper to determine substantive credibility or arrogant insouciance; (or perhaps, a little of both?).

First I would like to revisit the following sentence from the 'Irrelevant Happiness' post: "... day-to-day existence in this physical realm is given meaning through a dichotomy of harsh reality and ineffable/intuitive spirituality." This is not a spectrum. Nor are they combatants. In my mind they are the substance of Life, existing simultaneously, and cannot be given equal time, but should always be given equal consideration. I believe it impossible to give them equal time because I believe time to be a product of empirical reality, and only an illusion in the realm of spirituality which emanates from inner transcendence; but this is good because it allows spirituality to permeate reality. So initially, what I was referring to as 'the meaning of existence' in the previous post was recognition, acknowledgment, assimilation, and the resulting synergy from both reality and spirituality. They must be united as one for maximum vitality.

As always, easier said than done and in its perfection, unattainable; but definitely worth striving towards.

Next I would like to expand some on irrelevance, which I believe to be the 'harsh' part of reality. One cannot escape the fact of irrelevance in some, most, or (I might argue) all of one's reality. One can ignore it, hide it away, deny it, fight it, or - one can embrace it. I believe embracing irrelevance is the only way to consistently unite reality and spirituality. Think of a time when a harsh reality could not be hidden, denied, or ignored; one's tendency is to turn to spirituality or inner transcendence. Wouldn't it be better to seek inner transcendence and act upon one's spirituality full-time, rather than only when the need arises? Full-time spirituality emanating from inner transcendence it seems would require full-time recognition, acknowledgment, and assimilation of the harshness or reality; i.e. irrelevance. Embrace it.

So what about inner transcendence or spirituality? The fact that it may be present full-time if one embraces irrelevance full-time, does not necessarily make it relevant. Herein lies the dichotomy; irrelevance (harsh reality) makes full-time spirituality from inner transcendence possible, but one must then find a way to embrace it to make it relevant. So how does one embrace the transcendental, full-time, and use the irrelevance that is inherent in empirical reality to make transcendence relevant?

My first thought is that this would initially be more of an individual choice; at least in terms of individual beliefs. However, regardless of beliefs, I believe the mechanics to be similar; and necessary. Some constants that have helped me to stay on track include consistent study, analysis, contemplation, and reflection. I believe these to be applicable to various beliefs and learning styles; for me it is individual reading, thought, and writing; for others it could be group discussions, formalized classroom settings, technologically advanced methods, etc, etc, etc. These are the mechanics of living spirituality.

Study? Analysis? Learning? An objection of "when?" may arise. Keeping in mind the premise that in the transcendental realm time is an illusion, I believe one can find lots of opportunity for free thinking when performing the myriad of mundane daily tasks that take little thought, and as with anything, it is not a matter of time anyway; it is a matter of priority. And even when I am dealing with an empirical priority requiring more attention or focus, I've found that some aspects of my spirituality naturally incorporate themselves into my day-to-day existence. And then as I am able, (and the more I am able), to submerge myself into reflective thought, time becomes less of a factor impacting my empirical reality. In other words, in its purer forms, spirituality emanating from inner transcendence is not subject to the constraints of time put on our day-to-day existence, thus (in turn) loosening those time constraints as they impact one's empirical reality.

This is very cool; because what it means to me is that transcendentally - because time does not exist - time never ends; in this spiritual realm time is an illusion, so my inner transcendence is eternal. Additionally, this concept fits with many different spiritual schools of thought and it frees us from not only the empirical constraints of time, but also from the resulting fear of the end of time.

I would like to think that this expansion of previous thought lends some substantive credibility and furthers my understanding of the 'meaning of existence.' Throughout history humankind has sought salvation; some assurance that 'my' time will not end. Perhaps this salvation lies in the full-time fusion of reality (irrelevance) and spirituality (inner transcendence) and the refutation of time.

I sit here now (4 hours after writing the preceding paragraph) and have difficulty with the concept that time is an illusion. I see the clock move; I think back to younger days; I look ahead to growing older. How can one realistically maintain that time is an illusion? Part of the answer is that one cannot realistically (empirically) maintain that time is an illusion, because time is a product of this physical realm - the argument must be made from a transcendental perspective. Perhaps as one grows older the commingling of reality and transcendence, described in the previous post 'Irrelevant Happiness' as the embodiment of the transcendental nesting within the empirical, actually becomes the transcendental blanketing the empirical, thus emphasizing/strengthening the premise that time is (if not an illusion) at least an extraneous aspect of existence. I would like to think that as I grow older (and wiser?) I can embrace the transcendental to an extent that I have less and less difficulty seeing time as an illusion.

It is a tough sell, but I believe it approaches Truth.

Time is an illusion.

I don't necessarily mean that 'my' time won't end, but I do believe that the end of 'my' time is an illusion.

It is a tough sell, but I believe it approaches Truth.

In the beginning there was a warm center. As empirical time progressed this nugget of ineffable/intuitive spirituality grew and strengthened to become a recognizable aspect of my empirical existence. As I continue to grow (physically) older this inner transcendence (with effort and determination) will begin to blanket and fuse itself onto and into the whole of my physical being. In the (empirical) end I will be pure transcendence, beyond the bounds of time.

One final thought - Faith cannot be a shortcut, simply there to justify part-time spirituality.

A couple of times this week I have been in the vicinity of that elusive, peaceful, calm center; which (with some effort) I believe is sometimes easier to locate in the midst of upheaval and turmoil. Perhaps due to the contrast.

This week my thoughts have revolved around substance and fulfillment, and I am finding them most accessible through exoteric goodness and by doing the right thing. 'Exoteric Goodness' and 'Doing the Right Thing' sound very close to the same, but I don't believe they are. I believe, to leave Goodness in your wake, one must first decide 'What is the right thing?' And I think that can only be decided with a depth of inner reflection; and even then there is uncertainty.

Exoteric Goodness is felt externally and in its purest sense, is left or passed along anonymously. Doing the Right Thing is formulated internally and in its purest sense, is unattainable. I don't have a system or a method for deciding the 'right thing' but I can tell you (for me) it is often not the easiest thing; nor is it necessarily the most obvious thing, the most popular thing, or the loudest thing. This week I have found it lonely and painful, yet also peaceful; because, while this may not be 'THE' right thing, I feel it is as close as I will come.

I am talking about a significant change in my empirical reality, but (as it should be) through this process I have grown transcendentally. And, from feedback received I believe I have left (at least a little) Goodness in my wake; (I hope as time goes on, this is borne out). As stated above, it is important that the recognition of this not be my motivating factor. I do strongly believe that the most impactful, effective Exoteric Goodness is that which is anonymous. Just as a gift grows with each passing from one to another, so to should Goodness grow as it is passed from one to another; each one adding 'a little something extra' - lagniappe. And as I think this through it is very true that my thoughts, feelings, and actions this week have been influenced and encouraged by many others who have passed their gifts along to me.

... It has been a lonely, painful, peaceful week.

When I cook gumbo, I make a roux. When making a roux, some people use oil; some use butter. I'm in the butter camp. Some people like a dark roux; some like a lighter roux. I'm in the lighter camp. Some people use tomatoes; some don't. I'm in the tomato camp. The day I cook it and serve it hot, it has a very rich, full-bodied flavor. Then, after we've had our fill, I let it cool and I put the leftovers in the fridge. I make sure there are always leftovers. When I take it out of the fridge the next night, the fats (because I'm in the butter camp) have solidified on the top. I can't help myself - I always remove them before reheating; even though I know they will disappear when reheated. Now that I have seen the ugly reality, I have to get rid of it. When facing reality, some people are hiders; some are dealers. I'm in the dealers camp. Some hiders hide reality; some hide from reality; and some are oblivious (as I am on the first day of gumbo). When reality is hidden or misunderstood, I am usually in the oblivious camp. Some dealers deal reality; some deal with reality. I try to make frequent visits to both camps. (Of course, at this point, it should be noted that, as always, it is easier said than done.)

Gumbo would not be gumbo (as jambalaya would not be jambalaya) without bell pepper, onion, and celery; often referred to as the 'holy trinity' in Cajun and Creole cuisine. In gumbo, these raw, chopped vegetables are used to arrest the roux (keep it from burning and getting bitter) once it reaches the desired color; (the celery, onion, and bell pepper serve as a shutoff valve to control excess). If you burn your roux, you must throw it out and start again. Constant stirring and attention are key to the right-for-you roux.

Some people like chicken gumbo; some like chicken and sausage (typically andouille); some like seafood; some like vegetarian; and some like uncommon or even exotic proteins (such as ground meats, turkey, deer, gator, nutria rat - the list is endless). I have pitched my tent in many different protein camps but almost always start with chicken. It is a matter of personal taste and character.

Most people ladle their gumbo over rice; some like it over half a sweet potato; a few like it over potato salad. I am definitely not in the sweet potato camp; the potato salad though is very interesting.

When I am doing something other than a seafood gumbo I like to take some broth from the stock pot and boil some shrimp in a smaller pot, then offer my guests the option of adding a few shrimp to their bowl of gumbo. This is lagniappe - 'a little something extra'.

And I haven't even touched upon the spices, other vegetables (okra is common; corn is controversial), the number of prep/cook/simmer hours, the bread, and the importance of leftovers - (Gumbo is always better the second day).

...One can learn a lot from a pot of gumbo.

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.