hopelesshappiness.com

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 ...

'Last week' I considered the relationship between uninhibited truthfulness and reality, and I determined that the interpretation / emphasis / impact of uninhibited truthfulness would vary with each individual perspective. I also stated that empirical reality could provide some common ground for varying interpretations of uninhibited truthfulness but transcendental reality (by its nature) could not. (Think politics and religion for examples of transcendental realities lacking common ground.) I then concluded last week's post by stating that due to the unique interpretive nature of uninhibited truthfulness, it could not be the same as reality; and then I pondered the relationship between Reality and Truth.

And here we are ...

First, to clarify - uninhibited truthfulness implies an attempt to communicate one's perspective to oneself and/or to others. One's perspective does not imply Truth. Truth is an unknowable Ideal that we can only hope to catch an occasional fleeting glimpse of, and Truth will always be beyond words.

Reality though (I believe) can serve as a conduit or bridge to close the gap on Truth. Unfortunately we cannot utilize transcendental reality to assist in closing this gap because there is no common ground to settle disputes. A like-minded group may feel they know the Truth through a transcendental reality, but the mere fact that there is dispute (i.e. differing opinions of a transcendental reality that by definition is beyond words) renders the problem unsolvable and the argument unwinnable.

We are left then with empirical reality which through shared experience and/or sensory data creates some common ground. I have stated before that I believe the fact that we are here in this physical realm has some import and must connect in some way to more important other-worldly considerations. The connectors I have previously presented are inner peace and exoteric goodness. These are two very real-world concepts that also go beyond words. I'm not sure how yet, but I feel the following paragraph lifted from the previous post 'Happiness Beyond Words' will help to connect some of these dots from empirical reality to the general vicinity of Truth:

"(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."

I am going to attempt to sort the layered complexity of thoughts currently cascading through my mind:

1. Empirically we can all relate to feelings that are difficult to describe with words. These feelings may emanate from a number of experiences including dreams, aspirations, relationships, learning, growth, adversity, other miscellaneous yearning, or they may come out of the blue.
2. With serious contemplation one can increase the number and expand the energy of these 'feelings beyond words'.
3. Once these 'feelings beyond words' increase in frequency, with attention and focus one can begin to recognize and associate them, building toward tangible concepts.
4. Once tangible concepts become more recognizable they will in turn encourage, and in some cases demand, a greater depth of understanding.
5. At times Life (or Fluff) will distract and pull one off course.
6. At times a greater depth of understanding will enable one to share concepts with others, and despite the inevitable loss in translation, this will in turn urge others to connect the dots from empirical reality to transcendental possibility to the general vicinity of Truth.

Already, in this effort above, I see some loss in translation. Perhaps another common example of this process will assist with a more instinctive understanding. Think about a loving or caring relationship nurtured and developed over time. Initially, in a relationship, it may be difficult to express words that do justice to the feelings; though we try. As time goes on we find it becomes more meaningful (and often second nature) to express these feelings wordlessly; with a simple look, or a loving touch, or one's tone, or body language, or simply one's presence. This is communication beyond words that began empirically but ultimately leads to a greater depth of understanding, thus proving (in my mind) the transcendental nature or basis of this empirical reality.

Exoteric Goodness - The Goodness one leaves in their wake, as one passes through this empirical reality; one's legacy as interpreted by others.

Inner Peace - The calming of and satisfaction with one's energy previously distributed via feelings, thoughts, and actions; one's legacy as interpreted by oneself.

The more meaningful the feeling, thought, or concept, the more difficult it becomes to communicate/verbalize understanding to oneself or to others; yet within oneself there is an intuitive understanding that we know is there ... at our fingertips ... just beyond our grasp. I believe the two connectors presented are examples of observable (empirical) behaviors/concepts that have the potential to leave an indescribable (transcendental) impact; which in turn closes the gap on Truth because Truth is an unknowable (indescribable, transcendental) Ideal. I believe this is how we connect the dots from this world to that which is beyond; identify concepts that bridge the gap.

If we desire to seek Truth and Wisdom across all natural and artificial boundaries, empirical reality is all we have to work with. There are cultures, religions, political affiliations, and other like-minded groups that can profess or pretend to know transcendental reality and The Truth, but as a species, or even as a country, the common ground we have to meet on - the place we must start - the only place where everyone is welcome - is shared experience / agreed upon sensory data / empirical reality.

I am not discouraging anyone from seeking transcendental reality. I am simply pointing out three things:

1. When there is disagreement on transcendental reality, both parties should conjointly retreat to common ground and find some agreement (a starting point) in empirical reality.
2. Transcendental reality is actually transcendental possibility that began in empirical reality and has been through multiple filters including one's uninhibited truthfulness to oneself.
3. Seeking transcendental reality is just one step (or loop) in the process of an individual closing the gap on Truth, Wisdom, and Happiness.

Each morning I get out of bed, situate my playing pieces, roll the die, and start moving. Once my playing pieces are in play, I again roll the die and again move accordingly. Sometimes the die roll dictates that I move backward. Most days I talk myself into believing that there is some steady forward progress. I have a lot of pieces in play and sometimes it is hard to track all the simultaneous movement; especially when moving with and/or against the tide of other player's pieces.

Sometimes I land on a space that requires me to draw a card with new instructions; occasionally these instructions are game-changers. Oftentimes instructions dictate interaction with other players - occasionally cooperatively; occasionally competitively, or even adversarially. Sometimes there are disputes over rules interpretation. When this happens, the player whose piece is furthest ahead generally wins the argument. It's a good thing I have multiple pieces in play because a couple seem to consistently lag behind.

Frequently I have to make decisions that I know will influence outcomes both short and long term. I don't always know what is best, but the unforgiving nature of the game ensures that I will find out. Additionally, the random complexity of the game makes it difficult (at times seemingly impossible) to predict outcomes and avoid mistakes; especially since rules interpretation is constantly in flux. The best I can hope for is to recover, learn, and grow, knowing adversity will continue to show up in one or more of my spaces.

Occasionally the scoring system changes with little or no notice, and I wake up (or open my eyes) to a different game than I thought I was playing. Sometimes I keep playing the same game, even when it has become a different game; which is not a winning strategy. Sometimes the most fun is had by successfully anticipating changes and overcoming obstacles and/or other players. Sometimes the object is not to beat other players, but to beat the odds or to stay ahead of the game. Sometimes the object is to beat other players.

There are some days when I feel like I am running a game on Happiness. Over-analyzing / over-thinking just to establish a foothold. Am I 'Gaming' Happiness? ... Or Myself? ... Or is Happiness 'Gaming' me? ... Are we all 'Gaming' one another?

At times, when I attempt to intimidate Reality by staring into its harshest, darkest corners, the resulting shock waves make me understand why Reality is typically ignored. Reality is not a game. The only way to 'Game' Reality is to ignore the dark corners, focus intently on the bright center, and go blind.

But ...

Sometimes when I focus too intently on the deepest, darkest recesses I lose sight of the bright center. So perhaps the place to be is in the fringes; where the Dark and the Light overlap. From the fringes I should be able to see part of the way into the Dark with assistance from the Light; but then sometimes when I move forward for a better look, I find myself stumbling in the Dark. I am drawn to the Dark; I feel I will find more Truth and Wisdom from the Dark; but this could be a siren song ... luring me into the Dark ... to stumble around ... Blindly.

I should qualify 'Dark' as used above - In this context it is simply meant as an unavoidable part of reality typically mainfested as pain and adversity. It is not meant as a negative and as discussed and implied throughout this site, it should be balanced with Light. I am struggling with this balance right now. Perhaps it is because the flow and direction of my uninhibited truthfulness has been predominantly outward; toward others. Perhaps I need to balance this flow with some inner flow, and a greater effort to interpret uninhibited truthfulness flowing from others toward me.

I don't want to carelessly stumble around in the Dark and I cannot / will not be blinded by the Light of rainbows and lollipops. It seems I should adjust my perspective with some inner/outer/directional balance as suggested above, but I am afraid in doing so 'game' advantage will be sacrificed. It seems (as it is now) that in the short term I am less well off, but I strongly believe that in the long term I will more consistently close the gap on Truth, Wisdom, and Happiness by acknowledging and doggedly exploring the Dark.

At this stage in my thought, I am drawn back to 'this post' where I identified 5 essential components necessary to construct parallel tracks (empirical and transcendental) that will support one another encouraging interdependence and mutual (empirical and transcendental) success. These 5 components are:

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

I would like to encourage improved empirical balance and I believe this is possible if I first understand the relationship between uninhibited truthfulness and reality. I have stated (paraphrased and simplified) that reality is a mix of Dark and Light while uninhibited truthfulness is conscious recognition of all aspects of reality. Additionally, uninhibited truthfulness implies communication / verbalization of one's interpretation of reality. Once verbalized, if there is disagreement, then how does one define reality? Transcendentally this appears to be a daunting (if not impossible) task. Empirically, if two or more individuals or groups can agree on sensory data, then headway can be made towards an agreeable definition of empirical reality, and one's uninhibited truthfulness can at the least be understood, though may not be internalized. The manifestation of this process through behavior is still determined by individual perspective. Simply put, empirical reality may be interpreted as the same, but uninhibited truthfulness (no matter its origin, flow, or direction) will have varying impacts on each individual.

With all that said, uninhibited truthfulness must be distributed equally amongst (to and from) all players including myself. As stated above, my efforts to this point (in hindsight) seem to have flowed from my perspective/interpretation of uninhibited truthfulness and I have not readily received or interpreted uninhibited truthfulness from others. I am learning that my perspective (from the perspective of some others) is at times considered serious and harsh. But as Popeye says, "I am what I am." I am afraid if I allow too much influence, I may no longer be what I am. So rather than creating a new 'artificial' reality, perhaps I should simply be more understanding of those with different perspectives; I need to understand that their interpretation of uninhibited truthfulness will likely be different from mine; I believe empathy and compassion can be applied to perspectives flowing in either direction, allowing me to stay in touch with reality, even when others choose to disregard it or lessen its impact.

As for the other components I will restate description from the previous post in which they were introduced: "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."

At the time I'm not sure I realized it, but I believe the key word above to be 'productive'. In order for uninhibited truthfulness to be 'productive' it must be (as I have noted this week) differentiated from reality by realizing that no matter how harsh, painful, or serious the sensory data presented, one can be blinded by the Light thus mitigating the impact of the Dark. And no matter how painful it may be to see such widespread oblivion, sincere respect must be shown and inner calm must be maintained to enable persistence and to encourage skeptical scrutiny; thus allowing for and creating opportunity to move ahead.

Thanks to individual perspective, uninhibited truthfulness is not the same as reality. Which leads me to ask - Is Reality the same as Truth?

(To Be Continued...)