hopelesshappiness.com

Perhaps I would like to argue for multiple deciding factors.

If ahead of time, to determine exam score cutoffs for the upcoming academic year, you decided on this specific guideline, (G1), instead of that one, (G2), but after the fact you determine that if you would have used G2 then these 8 students who failed the exam under the auspices of G1 would have passed according to G2, but then you see under G2 a different set of 6 students would have failed, and if this exam has a significant influence on the course of a student’s confidence, health, education, career and life, then why wouldn’t you argue to use both G1 and G2 to the benefit of all 14 individual students? Would it be better after the fact to switch to G2 for the greater good? I would argue that because the exam failure is dependent upon which deciding factor is used, and because G1 and G2 are both valid, acceptable parameters, an individual student’s failure (no matter the deciding factor) is arbitrary and unjust. I would ask, if the outcome is clearly and without argument arbitrary, how is it justice that this random group is punished and that random group is rewarded?

This thinking is outside the box; way outside the box. We have to make the rule and follow the rule, and we have to judge accordingly and consistently to be fair and just – Right? I believe this argument for consistency has some validity if/when not doing so is for the benefit of one at the expense of another; though I might also argue that if we are consistently tempted to apply a rule inconsistently, we should seriously consider our motives or reconsider the rule. But when rules are (clearly and without argument) arbitrary and one can apply multiple rules that benefit more people and hurt no one, what other reason is there for not doing so except for one’s desire to maintain an illusion of control and its underlying power dynamic?

We are stuck inside our box because we think that anarchy, chaos, and turmoil will result if we don’t follow a rule or routine or convention. We are stuck inside our box because we think that when someone else benefits, we will be hurt. And we are stuck inside our box because we think that to defend ourselves we must flex our muscle to keep everyone in their place. And it is this instinctive, zero-sum, selfish thinking that keeps us all in one place not noticing that our future is continuing forward without us.

Arbitrary: having only relative application or relevance; not absolute.

Relative: existing or having its specific nature only by relation to something else; not absolute or independent.

Absolute: intrinsic; not comparative or relative; belonging to a thing by its very nature.

Synonyms for Arbitrary: whimsical, chance, capricious, fanciful, discretionary, injudicious, erratic, offhand, frivolous, optional, inconsistent, supercilious, irrational, superficial, irresponsible, unaccountable, random, unscientific, subjective, wayward, unreasonable, willful, dictatorial, autocratic, monocratic, no ifs ands or buts, bossy, despotic, overbearing, dogmatic, peremptory, domineering, tyrannical, high-handed, imperious.

• Arbitrary decisions, rules, outcomes are unavoidable, partially because we are subjective, sweaty humans.
• To apply multiple valid, acceptable rules that in combination offer additional benefit with no added expense is far closer to Justice than to get hung up on power, control, and faulty zero-sum thinking that punishes randomly.
• Instinctive faulty zero-sum thinking is more forgivable than learned, entrenched faulty zero-sum thinking which is perhaps more forgivable than contrived, manipulative intentional, harmful zero-sum thinking.
• Any effort to control by constricting parameters (such as in the exam scoring example above) is first instinctive in that the self preservation instinct (to protect one’s self from harm) includes one’s mental health of which self-esteem is a component.
• One positive treatise I found on self esteem suggested not comparing yourself to others and distancing yourself from negative people.
• I might argue that to compare one’s self to those less fortunate would actually boost self esteem.
• I might also argue that to distance one’s self from reality (which is often a synonym for negativity) is not a step toward self preservation if one (as they should) considers their descendants an extension of self.
• Thus when we constrict parameters, self esteem is boosted and the survival of Humanity is threatened.
• Self esteem is boosted by not only differentiating one’s self from lesser individuals (by making the rules) but also by differentiating these lesser beings from those lesser beings thus creating smaller, more manageable divisions and lessening the danger for an overthrow of status quo.
• And of course by thinking this through I have moved from instinctive to conscious to intentional.
• And now that I recognize that, if I do not reduce the whimsy by applying multiple rules I have consciously moved from a subjective, sweaty human to an injudicious, irresponsible tyrant.

The End.

There is a difference between exercising power and acting tough. To exercise power is to methodically, consistently, thoughtfully work accessible power in a conscious effort to improve. To act tough is merely a muscle flexed to feel good about one's self and/or to impress others. Flexing a muscle is a spurious reaction with little or no thought to consequence. And because a flexed muscle is a threat, this single-minded act is that of a bully. Some bullies learn to flex different muscles in rapid-fire succession in an attempt to disguise and/or reinforce their abuse of power.

I believe that the more muscle flexed, the more insecure one is. And I believe that the more muscle flexed, the more tenuous one’s hold on power. Those who are more secure in their power allow and even encourage this lesser flexing of muscle because the alternative, (methodical, consistent, thoughtful power worked to improve circumstance), would threaten their security. It is interesting then that to bully the powerful and wealthy, we must choose to not be a bully. Furthermore, it is the movement toward more widespread improved circumstance that tends to transform greater power from condescending confidence to fear-mongering intimidation. And finally, the unabashed onslaught that is fear-mongering intimidation allows those who are seen as merely condescendingly confident to claim the mantle of good guy; because the opposite of bad guy, must be good guy – right? By definition, good-cop bad-cop is a staged production designed to manipulate, control, victimize. And this nicely sums up the cluster that has become our nation’s two-party political system.

Anyone who has ever been taken advantage of by good-cop bad-cop, in hindsight would attest to the fact that ‘good’ is a misnomer. As a nation we should have long ago passed into hindsight, but here we are – still believing in the good cop and still suffering exploitation and oppression at the hands of two bad guys. An actual good guy would find a way to empower from the bottom-up. Instead we flirt with progress and improve only incrementally because one-half of our powerful, wealthy leadership, (the condescendingly confident), play good-cop through top-down paternalistic policy, while the other half play bad-cop keeping us off balance by prompting us to fight back with an uncoordinated, disjointed rapid-fire lesser flexing of muscle. And we (the majority) choose sides pretending we are a part of something and believing it is real.

It is a staged production that benefits power and wealth. And we (the majority) are victims.

This week I was not allowed to use the restroom that is only steps away from my office.

I remember when I was in grade school in the 1960’s and walking home with a friend, there was a gas station about halfway whose restroom had a sign that said “Whites Only!” My friend wasn’t white. I didn’t understand that then and I don’t understand this now.

It is apparently still okay to put people in their place; to overtly, blatantly, screamingly remind people that they are less – purposeless, meaningless, defenseless, worthless, powerless.

I am not good enough to save myself. But I am good enough to help save others. Perhaps this is an indicator of which is more important. In this country, we have a contrived system of wealth and power that encourages us to save our self and gives the false impression to some that they are doing or have done exactly that. I will never believe, under any longstanding practice or elaborate system, that I can save myself by amassing or pretending power and/or wealth. If that is the point, we are a sad, misguided lot. Today, in this country, we are a sad, misguided lot.

Ultimately, to be saved is to actively seek then find Beauty, Truth, Wisdom, Justice. But because these Ideals in their perfection are not possible in a single lifetime, existentially, to be saved becomes momentary glimpses of their potential. And, that being the case, because I am not in a position of great (or even very much) influence I believe to work at helping others, I am better served when my efforts center upon maintaining a constancy of awareness and setting an example in the active hope that this will encourage others to (on occasion) also glimpse the potential of these Ideals, and that this will drive us all to move closer and closer to their perfection and away from our current path that winds around bureaucracy, convention, certainty, division. Additionally, existentially, (which is all I will know in this lifetime), I must also help to save myself, understanding that I can only momentarily glimpse and/or move closer to Beauty, Truth, Wisdom, Justice if I in turn, also, have the help of others. Existentially, to be saved cannot be an individual pursuit. How can I not concern myself with all of Humanity when we as a species are on a trajectory towards extinction? Power and/or wealth will not save me or my descendants from dying out alongside everyone else.

My grandparents’ generation has become extinct. My parents’ generation is nearly there. My generation – soon to follow. Having had some health challenges, I could make my contribution to that end tomorrow. Instinctively, thoughtlessly, I wrote tomorrow; but it could as easily be today. It truly is thoughtless putting off necessary action because we believe in tomorrow. And again, instinctively, thoughtlessly, I caught myself feeling let down by tomorrow, but in actuality, every day in which I don’t do enough, (which is every day), I am a disappointment to tomorrow. Tomorrow does not care how much money I have, or how many people I supervise, or how many rules I make. Tomorrow only wants the consideration it is due, but tomorrow is constantly overshadowed, shoved out of the way, bullied, by today. One day when tomorrow has had enough, it will go away mad and never come back.

To consider tomorrow I must work to understand potential consequences of today’s action or inaction. To consider today is to seek comfort; avoid discomfort. To existentially help save others (and myself) I should 1) consider tomorrow, 2) choose, 3) act, 4) consider tomorrow. In theory, today is vexing, decisive action reconsidered. In theory, tomorrow is happy with me. In actuality, today is pretentious, rhetorical inaction. In actuality, tomorrow is for another day. In actuality, by myself I am not good enough to do enough.

Often because our individual desire to seek comfort and avoid discomfort aligns with today’s objectives, today is able to vanquish tomorrow with little or no help. But perhaps as often, if or when tomorrow pushes back, today calls on yesterday to reinforce its flanks and rear. Today, in this country, tomorrow is no match for the combined forces of a misremembered, glorified yesterday and a substantial, complacent today.

Individuals who justify their efforts to save their self by calling on longstanding practices and elaborate systems do not understand what it means to save one’s essential self. Yesterday and today are sufficient for individual, superficial substance and meaning. Tomorrow though is necessary for the Salvation of Humanity. Why can’t we see this?

In the late 1800's there were men vying to be the one to kill the last buffalo. They were encouraged by America’s destiny – our right as god-fearing white overlords to parcel and own all the land from sea to shining sea. Nothing was going to stop us. At that time there were perhaps 500 buffalo in the United States and maybe another 500 in Canada. For many policy-makers and expansionists though, the buffalo were merely a more expeditious means to a predetermined end: resolution of the Indian Question. By killing all the buffalo the white man forced the Indian (literally and metaphorically) into a corner. At this same time our far-reaching government also overtly encouraged us to “Kill the Indian, save the man.” This was the stated goal of our government’s residential school program in which Native American children were forcibly taken from their families and relocated to these schools where they were methodically stripped of their identity and culture. Half of the children did not survive the experience. The phrase (Kill the Indian, save the man”) was first uttered by Captain Richard Henry Pratt in a speech in 1892 during the National Conference of Charities and Correction, held in Denver, Colorado. Pratt was founder and superintendent of the Carlisle Indian School (founded in 1879) and his phrase became a rallying cry for those claiming and/or believing it a noble cause to civilize, Americanize, assimilate and educate. Kill the buffalo. Kill the Indian. For the sake of Progress, Power, Wealth, America. For the sake of the white man. Genocidal Patriotism.

Darkness flows, moving over, under and around a person. Light permeates, becoming a living part of a person. If darkness solidifies, it will not become a part of a person, but persons nearby are in danger of becoming a part of it. If light dissipates, surrounding light rushes to fill the void, leaving persons nearby in danger of becoming two-dimensional, character-less, formless. Darkness is most likely to solidify where light dissipates.

Like-minded groups, (such as the powerful and wealthy), who are disconnected from Humanity as a whole, create their own artificial light often spread, broadcast through rhetoric, (such as “kill the Indian, save the man”), to pretend they are keeping the darkness at bay.

Today I feel like our day-to-day existence is defined, driven, dictated by nothing but artificial light. We no longer even recognize and/or acknowledge the essence of light. Native, essential light has become foreign to our indoctrinated senses, and God knows we cannot consider anything that is different or that might require learning, growth, change.

So, when it suits us, we will practice Genocidal Patriotism. And when it suits us, we will further manifest our high-handed arbitrary destiny. And when it suits us, we will believe we have saved the world. And when it suits us, we will condemn Genocidal Patriotism. And when it suits us, we will know; with certainty. And when it suits us, we will pretend we are changing for the better. And when it suits us, we will say, “Let there be artificial light.” And when it suits us, we will declare that the light is good. Amen.