hopelesshappiness.com

According to Life, to be a nobody or to be a somebody (and each point in-between) is determined by one’s influence. But it appears to me that I have no influence outside context and circumstance.

Context includes:

• A Job.
• A Family.
• An Organization.
• An Association.
• An Event.

Circumstance is individual and subject to changing and different interpretations.

According to Life, when I am a part of something, when I belong to something, I am somebody. When I am alone, truly alone, I am nobody.

Sign seen in Buckner, Missouri: “First Baptist Church – A Place to Belong.”

I want to turn it upside down and claim to be somebody only when nobody (me), is influenced. Nobody (me) = nobody else. If you think about it, when another is influenced they are only influenced within context and circumstance meaning they are not influenced by me, they are influenced by the results of my influence on context and circumstance meaning I am a somebody diluted by being at least twice removed, once by context then by circumstance. So, I am less of a somebody within context and circumstance than I will ever be within me; when I am alone; truly alone. Yet I believe in the illusion, and everyone within the context and circumstance believes in the illusion, and we all want to belong.

According to Life, the less of a somebody one is, the more they are undervalued; most especially by a bigger somebody. But by turning it upside down, by defying the illusion, it is obvious these labels do not define the individual; they define context and circumstance according to Life. Yet, still, according to Life:

• I am defined by my job.
• I am defined by the concerts, sporting events, rallies, festivals I attend.
• I am defined by the movies and shows that I watch, by the books that I read, by the food establishments I frequent.
• I am defined by my associations, affiliations, and memberships.
• I am defined by the clothes that I wear, the car that I drive, the house and neighborhood where I live, the money I earn, the money I have, the money I appear to have.
• I am defined by my shadow.

And because we are all within all this context and circumstance, and because we want to belong, we buy into the illusion and we believe and we act accordingly. The problem with this is not so much the lesser somebodies understanding who they are (or more appropriately who they are not), the problem is the bigger somebodies constantly reminding us that we are not so they can continue to believe that they are. It. Is. An. Illusion.

But by turning it upside down, by defying the illusion, I am a somebody; invisible, yes, but still an actual somebody as opposed to the parading pretense seen within context and circumstance.

The illusion is unavoidable. I will continue to find myself in the parade, caught up in the beat of the drum, (mostly) in tune and in step. And I will continue to be defined according to an illusion.

According to the Mayo Clinic, those who have narcissistic personality disorder can:

• “Have an exaggerated sense of self-importance.
• Have a sense of entitlement and require constant, excessive admiration.
• Expect to be recognized as superior even without achievements that warrant it.
• Exaggerate achievements and talents.
• Be preoccupied with fantasies about success, power, brilliance, beauty or the perfect mate.
• Believe they are superior and can only associate with equally special people.
• Monopolize conversations and belittle or look down on people they perceive as inferior.
• Expect special favors and unquestioning compliance with their expectations.
• Take advantage of others to get what they want.
• Have an inability or unwillingness to recognize the needs and feelings of others.
• Be envious of others and believe others envy them.
• Behave in an arrogant or haughty manner, coming across as conceited, boastful and pretentious.
• Insist on having the best of everything — for instance, the best car or office.”

I believe narcissistic personality disorder has become so much the norm, so pervasive, so prevalent that it also commonly afflicts larger entities and organizations including:

• Human Resources.
• Management.
• The Republican Party.
• The Democratic Party.
• The Legislative Branch.
• The Executive Branch.
• The Judicial Branch.
• Organized Religion.
• Health Care.
• The United States of America.

This is far from a complete list.

I am expected by more powerful NPD's to be happy taking care of my piece of our plateau. And I do a good job; clearing, cutting, trimming, keeping it looking nice. There's a nice view and people like to visit. Our reviews from visitors are solid. The problem for me is I no more than get one section trimmed and looking nice when another section is threatening unruliness. So I move on, and again, and again. Meanwhile, the more powerful NPD's look down upon my work and congratulate themselves on keeping their visitors happy, not noticing and/or ignoring the prickly undergrowth around the perimeter and the ominous overgrowth stretching above our plateaunic oasis and the slippery erosion just beneath the surface.

There is work that could and should be done. I prefer a path with possibility over a plot of land to maintain.

I have one more week on our pleasant plateau before I take a new path up the hill.

Finesse: “skill in handling a difficult or sensitive situation; adroit and artful management.”

Heavy-handed: “oppressive, harsh, clumsy, graceless.”

Hands-off: “characterized by nonintervention or noninterference.”

I would argue that any situation involving interaction with another already is, or has a strong potential for being, difficult or sensitive.

When interacting with heavy-handed, one tends toward hands-off.

When interacting with hands-off, one tends toward heavy-handed.

In a multi-player game when caught in-between, one learns finesse.

So if it is a horizontal spectrum from 0 to 100 with heavy-handed to the right, hands-off to the left, and finesse at 50, where is power?

When interacting with greater power, one tends toward hands-off.

When interacting with lesser power, one tends toward heavy-handed.

When interacting with greater power that tends toward hands-off, one learns finesse.

When interacting with lesser power that tends toward heavy-handed, one learns finesse.

Power is two spectrums of the same length forming an X, both intersecting the finesse line at 50 (all lines 60 degrees apart) with greater power above and lesser power below the horizontal.

No good comes from an interaction between heavy-handed and heavy-handed.

Nothing comes from an interaction between hands-off and hands-off.

Improvement or progress from an interaction between heavy-handed and hands-off depends on proximity to finesse.

A level-playing-field requires finesse.

Power tilts a playing-field.

Heavy-handed tilts a playing-field.

Hands-off tilts a playing-field.

When interacting on a level-playing-field, much is possible.

Very, very, very, very few playing-fields are truly level.

Perhaps instead of going into a situation with or without power, heavy-handed, or hands-off, one should practice finesse.

One should excel at finesse.

So does this mean that to help finesse along, when I interact with greater power I should tilt toward heavy-handed and when I interact with lesser power I should tilt toward hands-off?

Yes; gradually until power becomes a non-factor.

Though (in my experience) very unlikely, if/when power becomes a non-factor, finesse becomes not only more possible but likely.

Multi-player finesse is necessary for improvement or progress beyond baby-steps.

There is no finesse in literal interpretation.

This week when I gave my current department two weeks' notice they had difficulty understanding why I would make a lateral move when I have been fussing about pay for more than two years. According to their yardstick, pay, I am an average employee (recently promoted from below average) compared to those in the same position. Utilizing that same yardstick I am moving to a department where I will be a top-paid employee in a lesser position. For me pay is not about pay, it is about justice. And I believe my performance consistently warrants top pay, (which I am now receiving), though I did not get a pay raise. Justice. I was never asking for money; I was asking for justice. And I was only asking for personal justice in a circumstance where I could compare apples to apples. Don't get me started on the injustice of the power-driven, heavy-handed wealth gap.

Justice requires finesse.

Early week:

This week (Thursday) I have a job interview with my current employer in a different department for a lesser position. Apparently, my thinking is hard for some to understand, perhaps hard to follow, and hard for me to explain. Overlapping pay scales and differing departmental philosophies help one to understand and follow, but in my job search I am finding it more difficult to explain being over-qualified than being under-qualified. Perhaps simply put, one who is under-qualified is looking to better their self, whereas one who is over-qualified is looking to better their world, and I suppose more people are better able to relate to their self. To want to save the world may sound pretentious, but when sincere it translates well. And, I would rather constantly improve my surroundings than rise to my level of incompetence and play make-believe. The latter in practice is far more pretentious.

Working to make things better is who I am. I am frustrated and dissatisfied when trapped in a status quo. In my thoughts, I cannot stand still. Constant improvement is critical for my presence and peace of mind. And in my current department, for the past year-plus we have been standing still; and it appears moving forward, the expectation is to merely maintain our current level of performance. Good enough is good enough for the Department; it is not for me. I would prefer a department where I can make a bigger difference, even if it is in a lesser position.

I am a clerkship coordinator. My current department in multiple performance evaluations claims I am above average, (even excellent), yet their words are hollow. My current department cannot claim to value me as more than an average employee because according to my pay I am average. I spent nearly four years as a below average clerkship coordinator. Just over four months ago I advanced (in pay) from a below average clerkship coordinator to an average clerkship coordinator. Yet according to the enrollment numbers, I am the hardest working clerkship coordinator and according to student ratings, I am the highest rated clerkship coordinator and according to my workload and output, I am confident that I am one of the most efficient and productive clerkship coordinators. Huge disconnect. My current department is either cheating or lying. Or both.

I of course cannot disclose all of this in a job interview. I have found this much truthfulness scares people. I should stick to the following themes:

• Working to make things better is who I am.
• In my current position the expectation is merely to maintain.
• Constant improvement is important to my presence and peace of mind.
• Good enough is not good enough.
• I would prefer a position in a department where I can make a bigger difference.
• I am confident I can do that in this position.

Thursday:

I can never tell. I believe I provided an unnecessarily excessive amount of truthfulness; (as I usually do). I suppose we will see.

Late week:

I received an email from Human Resources requesting five references, so I am supposing that means I have not been eliminated from consideration. As an aside, have HR departments become a totally unruly, bureaucracy-laden pain-in-the-ass or what? Thirty years ago when I was HR, granted I was most of that but not as unruly. Now I'm like a reformed smoker. And no – even though unruly implies disorder and lawlessness, and a bureaucracy attempts to instill order, an unruly bureaucracy is not an oxymoron because to be a bureaucracy also requires some degree of excessive complexity which will always result in some degree of deranged confusion.

We will never find the Truth; but if I may be permitted, the truth is that Life is complexity simplified by bureaucracy compounded by deranged confusion thus encouraging entrenchment and certainty; so, perhaps the HR Model is one to live by. No; I should stick to truthfulness.

Two Weeks Later:

I accepted the job. Demotion + Pay Cut = Justice. Thank you HR.

So if I am the most qualified to judge my life, and if my life is best defined as the moments I live, then I would say, in this moment, I am a mistake-prone human who takes life seriously and works hard to add Goodness to this moment believing that will more likely positively influence my next moment. My criteria for determining Goodness changes with each thought. Past moments are there as a reminder that I can do better. Future moments are there as an enticement to do better. This moment is here as a way to do Good. If I expend excessive effort on a narrative, and/or working to make others fit my narrative, I will lose myself. In my life, I have spent more moments lost than not.

----------

Outside an office, down the hall, hangs a framed inspirational shoutout that says, “In a world where you can be anything, be kind.” When I first took this in, my initial thought (because I tend to be more truthful than nice) was, “if I lived in that world.” Then considering the world this encouragement comes from, I am pondering what they may mean by “be kind.” I believe kind (especially in the workplace), has come to mean indulgent or not holding others accountable. And if we did live “in a world where you can be anything,” then perhaps one could be allowed more time to grow into their self and/or their responsibilities. But in the world we live in, I believe this indulgence will be, (already is?), a major player in the death of us.

So, to be kind can be indulgence, leniency or permissiveness which can (especially in the workplace) come from a desire to avoid confrontation. Or, to be kind can be benevolence, a desire to help others, and/or a desire to add Goodness all of which come from compassion and require considerable effort. Which all begs the question, can we unlearn our lazy desire for comfort in our make-believe world where one can be anything, to implement difficult change for Good? Or are we entrenched?

I believe before we can come to any semblance of a world in which one can be anything, we must first be kind; (i.e. benevolent, helping others, adding Goodness). That inspirational shoutout has it backwards.

----------

If I were to die in my very next moment, some might suggest that my life be defined by connecting more than 1.2 billion dots; and they would then take a few days capped by 20 minutes doing so. Perhaps better to take a moment to do Good.