hopelesshappiness.com

I am debating tranquility vs. intensity.

A few weeks ago in the post Reconciling Happiness I clearly landed on the side of intensity, as I thought that would more likely close the gap on Happiness. This week I am shopping for tranquility but finding, so far, they don't have my size.

Is there a 'Big and Tall' store for tranquility that will adequately cover the degree of intensity I bring to most endeavors?

Tranquility - an inner calm allowing Wisdom and Truth to close the gap on me; much like sitting quietly in the forest until the rabbits and deer become unafraid and occasionally pass nearby; sudden movements (or even slight movements) send them scampering; but in its midst, such tranquility brings a feeling of oneness.

Yet whenever I try to cloak myself in tranquility I have bits and pieces of intensity hanging out here and there. (How gauche ...) Truth and Wisdom keeps its distance, and I am not fully engaged in either direction.

I am going to search for new perspectives over the next day or two ...

... Mid-(next day or two) thought - I have said it before; "just let go." ...

... Focus ... Look for Subtleties ... Understand Nuance.

Examine a work of art and absorb its detail, beauty, and symbolism.

Listen to a piece of music and feel its character, depth, and complexities.

Read a bit of literature and be absorbed by its emotion, meaning, and movement.

Sit in nature and enjoy its cycles, solitude, and uninhibited freedom.

Flow ... Harmonize ... Sway with Rhythm.

No Distractions ... No Self-Consciousness ... No Gravity.

Tranquility - Quietly observe Truth and Wisdom moving about in their natural habitat.

Music, Art, Literature, and Nature - colleagues in my search for inner peace. My goal is to one day be able to go to that inner peace with no assistance, but until then these are my chosen partners. I will/must turn to them more frequently.

I'm not doing away with intensity ... (in fact, there's a bit peeking out now) ... but this week I have rediscovered the value of tranquility. They both have their place.

Tranquintensility - to be intensely tranquil. Perhaps that is not possible. ... ... ... Perhaps I will find a way.

Clippety-clop.

... A single set of hooves on a cobblestone street. Pleasant; even soothing as it passes by and fades into the distance.

Clippety-clop Clippety-CLOP CLIPPETY-CLOP.

... Many sets of hooves thundering by. Powerful; even frightening as they shake the very ground and leave bystanders breathless.

CLIPPETY-CLOP CLIPPETTY-CLOP CLIPPETY-CLOP CLIPPETTY-CLOP CLIPPETY-CLOP CLIPPETTY-CLOP.

... A stampede bearing down with electrifying brutality. Overwhelming; uncontrollable; portentous.

CLIPPETTY-CLOP CLOP-CLIPPETTY CLIPPETTY-CLOP CLOP-CLIPPETTY CLIPPETTY-CLOP CLOP-CLIPPETTY CLIPPETTY-CLOP CLOP-CLIPPETTY CLIPPETTY-CLOP CLOP-CLIPPETTY CLIPPETTY-CLOP CLOP-CLIPPETTY.

... Two stampeding herds crashing head-on.

1. Emotions; (base; instinctive).
2. Feelings; (identifiable; recognizable; fewer sharp edges).
3. Thoughts.
4. Words.
5. Actions.

Typically this is the process, (in the order listed above), that can lead to a stampede. Insert "serious, contemplative reflection/analysis" somewhere before #4 and you create an opportunity - An opportunity to control potential conflict; whether it be inner conflict or conflict with others. This is true even when the emotions involved are positive.

I believe we can learn and grow from conflict which of course closes the gap on Happiness, but I believe we can find more Truth and Wisdom through conflict resolution.

Resolving inner conflict is a personal exercise handled individually. Resolving conflict with others should be a mutually beneficial exercise incorporating respect, empathetic listening, and tightly-controlled emotions/feelings.

I am not schooled in 'conflict resolution' and claim no expertise, but from a perspective of learning and growth it seems that the first step should be to identify and agree on what (specifically) the disagreement is. This should be documented to assist both parties/sides in staying focused and on-track. Once this is done mindsets should be examined. This could be done by allowing each party/side to choose 2 items from the list below that (in combination) best communicates their current stance or mindset:

• I Could Be Wrong.
• You Could Be Wrong.
• I Could Be Wrong.
• You Could Be Wrong.
• I Could Be Wrong.
• You Could Be Wrong.
• I Could Be Wrong.
• You Could Be Wrong.

This selection process must be done with complete uninhibited truthfulness; otherwise resolution will ultimately be thwarted by deception.

The hope is that each party will (truthfully) concede the possibility that they could be wrong (by choosing one of each different item from the list above). Once this step is taken, an avenue for dialogue has been opened. From there each party should be given the opportunity to explain how they could be wrong and how the other party could be wrong, and then with respect, empathetic listening, and controlled emotions, work towards resolution.

If one or both parties choose two 'You Could Be Wrong' items, then the disagreement must be re-examined and broken down into smaller increments (documented and agreed upon) in which concessions can be made. Of course, realistically, if a party chooses two 'You Could Be Wrong' items and that party is the ultimate decision-maker, then the decision is likely made.

If anyone chooses two 'I Could Be Wrong' items (unlikely), then the conflict is also resolved.

Conflict is an opportunity. It is sad that anyone would presume to always know best and bypass that chance to close the gap on Happiness. I know this from experience; but would like to think that I am evolving.

Pondering ...

Can everyday happiness (small 'h' - i.e. cheerfulness) have a positive influence or impact on our long-term Happiness (big 'H' - i.e. our search for Truth, Wisdom, and Purpose over a Lifetime) and still allow for reality? Two weeks ago, in the post Uninhibited Happiness I made the case for uninhibited truthfulness and a serious reckoning of reality as opposed to the illusion of 'Rainbows and Lollipops'. This week I am wondering if I was too harsh.

Cheerfulness lessens pain, yet pain and adversity encourage growth which in turn closes the gap on Happiness. Seriousness accounts for reality and pain in order to learn and grow, and in turn (depending on its intensity) can discourage, diminish, or dampen cheerfulness. So perhaps calling for uninhibited truthfulness is the same as calling for uninhibited cheerfulness; an extreme that (regardless of its appeal) does not account for reality. And perhaps this is a roundabout proof that we should strive for happiness (small 'h') just as we strive for Happiness (big 'H'). But if so, does this mean they are connected and important to each other? Or is cheerfulness / relaxation / fun simply a respite from our search for Truth / Wisdom / Purpose?

If they are connected, how are they connected? And then how do we work that synergy to our advantage? And if they become disconnected, how do we go about re-connecting them?

And if they're not connected are there some circumstances that would dictate cheerfulness over seriousness? Or perhaps the question should be, are there some circumstances (other than physical needs such as food, sleep, and procreation) that would 'allow' for cheerfulness over seriousness? And if so, to what extent should we take advantage of that situation?

I would like to find a connection. I'm not sure that I will.

The first and most obvious circumstance that comes to mind, that may lead to a connection, as it appears to be an integral part of both happiness and Happiness, is human interaction. One's behaviour does influence one's perceived state of mind. Human interaction does at times require a certain amount of social courtesy and cheerfulness which in turn can change our outlook and improve our state of mind, which may in turn lead to more balanced reflection on Happiness. I'm not sure if this proves a connection or is simply a lesson that points out the need for balanced thought.

... No! - (Epiphany) ...

I don't believe it points out the need for balanced thought, but rather points out the need for extreme thought, and reminds us of the fact that there is an opposite to that extreme. It only makes sense that to have balance, or even a spectrum of thought that creates the potential for balance, we must first have two extremes. So perhaps human interaction also encourages serious reflection on both extremes, which in turn will lead to greater complexity and depth of knowledge, thus closing the gap on Wisdom, Truth, and Happiness. But then does this prove a connection between happiness and Happiness, or is it just a lucky bounce?

Pondering ...

After several hours of pondering I don't believe a connection between happiness and Happiness has been proven; but I believe we've shown that human interaction does provide a circumstance that allows for (and at times may dictate) cheerfulness over seriousness; and makes the case that cheerfulness / relaxation / fun is more of a respite; unless ...

Unless the connection may be its rejuvenating power. Perhaps cheerfulness refocuses and sharpens one's analytical and reflective energies, allowing for more complexity and depth, leading to a greater or broader understanding, thus closing the gap on Happiness. Or perhaps this is simply a convenient justification for pursuing fun; or avoiding seriousness.

So I'm still not certain a connection exists; or should exist.

And outside of human interaction, I (personally) have a difficult time allowing everyday happiness to intrude upon my seriousness. Cheerfulness is not my natural state of mind; I am generally happy (small 'h') in my seriousness. Yet somehow when I carefully consider cheerfulness (as I have done this week) it feels that it should play a more significant role. If there is no direct straight-line connection between happiness and Happiness I feel (and want to believe) that there is a relationship. Perhaps distant (2nd or 3rd cousins twice removed?), but still, a relationship. If I think of the connection (if there is a connection) in these terms - as a distant cousin - it may keep me from taking advantage.

So, it looks like (in my search for Happiness) I should occasionally meet happiness for coffee and we will continue to see each other at the reunions, but otherwise I think it best we remain at arm's length. After all, I do not want the stigma of a 'kissing cousin'.

I don't know the answers. Each week I stumble around in the dark in hopes that I may accidentally run into one or two, but often I realize, I didn't even know the questions. So this week in recognition of elusive answers, unknown questions, and the inconsistencies, contradictions, and misunderstandings that often accompany reflective thought and discussion, I have presented below some inarguable truths.

Nonsensorationanities:

1. The sumbilicus of imperilous numblings is discontentiously propententional to the conduocity of randociferously chided stimulicensuality.
2. Irraucous relevocatious disharlarities destablish fortohere unnounceable herbiage and other indeliveracities of redoubious kerictage.
3. Finessitude contratrumps folkalization of cervyhicular hormonyical foodeliousness. Irreguardion, I still deprogate necities to flom.
4. Accumulactational dismamorosities decollectionally misconervate hairacious blastfemurs causting untolled leavings and gongs.
5. Incompetentional creactivity counter-conduits frost-free feng-shuiality and mis-disses irrecontrivable looming family heirarchities.
6. Excrementally-speaking, the ponderfluous nature of my vocularities contracedes the maxemenema whelmanacity of your bobulemfatic vacuocity.

I am stuck with me; and yet, knowing this, I still insist on examining my inner self with as much truthfulness as I can bear. This thinking is consistent with Kant who maintained that "the highest maxim, uninhibited truthfulness toward oneself as well as in the behavior toward everyone else, is the only proof of a person's consciousness of having character." I'm not sure I agree with complete uninhibited (verbal) truthfulness toward everyone else, for a couple of reasons: 1) many of us would not have jobs or friends if we were genuinely truthful with others; and 2) who am I to presume to understand your personal Truth and/or impose mine upon you. I believe Kant's statement should be interpreted as "behavior toward everyone else" that is consistent with one's sense of virtue, which should be closely connected with one's truthfulness toward oneself. (After all, actions do speak louder than words.) Simply put - Be Yourself, to yourself and to others. And to this end I absolutely believe in uninhibited truthfulness to oneself; you must first know yourself, and only then can you be yourself.

But Gosh; uninhibited truthfulness ... It can be hard some days; admitting and examining all my foibles and failings, and knowing I am constantly setting examples and precedent, and continuing to push myself to meet/exceed my expectations; and then when I am unable to meet those expectations, the cycle begins again; a cycle that will not end in this lifetime.

Yet living in a world of illusion (lies?), by telling myself that everything is wonderful, and all my decisions are correct and proper, and it's those who disagree with me that are deluded, leaves me disappointed and disheartened - when I catch myself. Studies have shown that when asked, more people say they would prefer truthfulness over illusion, yet this is not always borne out by our actions. It seems many of us are caught up in this wave of 'positive psychology' that attempts to carry us 'on high' while holding truthfulness / reality beneath the surface in hopes it will drown.

So for me that leaves a spectrum of Pain (at one end) to Delusion (at the other end) and me scampering back and forth between the two, attempting to locate the most comfortable proportions. I will admit and have been saying for 40-some weeks that this spectrum is intermittently punctuated with varying-sized spikes of beauty, joy, warmth, peace, and goodness (just a few of many choices related to our search for Happiness), so the hopelessness is periodically hopeful, but the tangible substance of the spectrum remains (again, for me) pain and delusion; (or if you prefer a somewhat kinder, gentler, interpretation - reality and illusion). I would also maintain that in the 'positive psychology' analogy above, this spectrum is still the substance of existence, but with the spectrum turned 90 degrees placing the illusion/delusion end riding the top of the wave which leaves the pain/reality end held beneath the surface. Continuing this analogy, we should ask the question, is Depression or Melancholia then 'positive psychology' turned on its head? And if so, does that mean 'positive psychology' is simply Depression or Melancholia turned on its head? It is something to think about.

We've painted a pretty picture but I'm not sure we've clearly resolved the issue of where to land between Pain and Delusion. It seems to clear up a little if we ask where to land between Reality and Illusion, since (as previously mentioned) most people would choose (at least consciously) reality. I believe it becomes very clear if we ask where to land between truthfulness and lies. Phrased in this manner we are right back to the beginning of this post encouraging truthfulness / reality / pain - "I still insist on examining my inner self with as much truthfulness as I can bear."

The question now becomes, 'how much truthfulness can one bear, and still remain a functional, productive, positive force in this life?' If I back off or ease up due to perceived functionality issues, does that then become an excuse or (worse yet) a reason to be less truthful? Yet if I push myself too far, will I find myself unable to function AND with a skewed sense of truthfulness?

With these questions in mind, it seems that uninhibited truthfulness may be an unattainable ideal much like Happiness, Truth, and Wisdom. But also like these other unattainable ideals, just because it is an unattainable ideal, does not mean it should not be pursued with the same energy we would put forth if it were attainable. This mindset is absolutely necessary to maximally close the gap on any of these ideals.

So the challenge is to balance positive functionality with full-scale truthfulness (i.e. minimal illusion), while at the same time deluding oneself into believing uninhibited truthfulness is possible. Oh what a tangled web we weave - using illusion to minimize illusion.

Does this contradiction discredit the premise? I would say no, because the entire premise is based on a mix (within the spectrum) of illusion and reality, and if uninhibited truthfulness is an unattainable ideal, we must choose a certain proportion of illusion regardless, therefore what better way to use illusion than to minimize illusion.

It is not an easy task to recognize illusion without acknowledging it or allowing it to impede progress toward uninhibited truthfulness. Often it is easier to acknowledge illusion as reality; but if recognized, I have found that the most effective way to mitigate its impact is as outlined in the recent post 'Filtered Happiness' where I say: I should not say or think, "It should be better" - I should never say or think, "It should have been better" - I should not say or think, "It will get better" - instead I should say and think, "It can get better" - and then I should work at it by acting 'in this moment' with an eye to the future.

By focusing on 'now' with an eye to the future, and accepting 'Whatever Is', I am softening the pain of reality; I am working on that which is potentially controllable and turning away from that which is potentially disheartening; I am letting go and moving on; I am minimizing the reality of illusion, thus maximizing effort toward uninhibited truthfulness.

Some may still argue that what I define as illusion, could or should be defined as reality. And if an indvidual truly perceives their reality as 'Lollipops and Rainbows' it will not matter the number or intensity of examples given, pain will remain either beneath the surface and a non-factor, or bloated-lifeless-drowned and non-existent.

As previously stated (twice), when given the choice we will say we prefer truthfulness, yet many of us act in a way that refutes our verbal/conscious choice. Actions speak louder than words. I will continue to seek uninhibited truthfulness and find a way to thrive in the midst of the pain (and periodic joys) of reality.

To think I have a choice in this matter, is to delude myself.