hopelesshappiness.com

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.

Prolificity. An exciting word. A word that speaks more to essence than to substance. But it is not the whole story.

To be complete, prolificity must be more than productivity – (think of a prolific bureaucrat); it must also be fruitful, (i.e. good, beneficial). To be fruitful in one's efforts to be prolific one must also be thoughtful, one must doubt and question, one must evolve, learn, grow, and one must work to be prescient. This prolific uncertainty emphasizes quality over quantity; reason over acclaim.

To get a little bit (or a big bit) better; to improve; to create and add more Goodness this time than last time, and to do so for the sake of Goodness…

It is what I aspire to, in everything I do.

And where has it gotten me?

In my decades of aspiring to prolific uncertainty, in this capitalistic world of work, I have discovered (somewhat in hindsight) that it is opposed to the financial security that is more likely to follow the prestigious promotions and titles that are commonly and erroneously used as benchmarks for prolificity. In my work experience, when due to the force of my prolific uncertainty I have found myself admired or (worse) feared for a proffered position or a new title it has surprised and disappointed me. Additionally, though not socially inept, I do not typically work very hard to be socially ept; (I know – not a word). All of this has contributed to frustration when I do rise short of my level of incompetence and I am unable to improve, make better, add Goodness to the more powerful, though incompetent decision-makers above me, which in turn leads to me trading personal financial security and/or more prestigious titles and positions for my integrity. So here I am, later in life (63), not having ever risen to a mind-numbing level of incompetence, integrity (mostly) intact, struggling to figure out how to productively contribute or (second choice) retire, and comfortably (as much as that is possible) survive on a minimal wage and/or retirement income, with all the associated aches and pains of getting older, in a world that regardless of rhetoric really doesn’t care.

And I (for now) am one of the lucky ones; perhaps because I have aspired and worked hard. But this system still seems wrong, (and even more so for many who are truly unlucky). In a world where we could choose to do better for all humans, we instead choose to believe this is the way of the world, allowing incompetent decision-makers to be excessively comfortable at the expense of (I believe ultimately) the future of humanity.

Is life history in its making? Or is history made in hindsight? I tend to believe the latter, so then, what is life? I don't want to hear all the bunk about life is what you make it, because what I see us making is a narrative to help us make sense of (or pretend we know) what we can't know; and there is a lot that we can't know. And if history is made in hindsight, once my life is history it will either be forgotten or misinterpreted. So accepting this, I must decide if I believe I will be judged and on what criteria and by whom. These are weighty questions. I believe I will be judged at the least by my self, (I believe I already do this), and I do not discount the possibility I will be judged by others. I cannot know the criteria on which others may judge me, but I can (and do) ponder seriously the criteria on which I judge myself; that criteria evolves, daily. I believe the third question, (though full of influence and meaning), should be less consequential than it typically is. Judged by whom insinuates the question, do you believe in God? If one claims a belief in God and an afterlife, I have asked before, “Will God judge on how much you professed to Love Her while here on Earth? Or will She judge on your efforts to take care of Her manifestation here on Earth; (i.e. All of Nature, All of Humanity)?" And if the latter, how are we doing? To be completely clear, I am saying I am the most qualified to choose the criteria and to judge my self, and I should expend effort every day questioning and revising both that criteria and that judgement. So again I ask, what is life?

Like it or not, one life is a mere moment across the span of all life, and one's moments are incidental across the span of one's lifetime. We work very hard to make order from chaos. We work very hard to attach meaning and purpose to this jumble of random, disjointed, wandering moments that carry us from birth to death, and this gives us comfort. And though they may contribute to a storyline, an episode, or an anecdote, most moments are the direct result of and/or greatly influenced by surrounding moments; moments belonging to both us and others. In this regard, life is momentary and we collectively make it but individually interpret it and define it.

Example:

In this very moment I am walking to work. I press a button to cross a major street, get the signal to cross, look both ways, and watch as a large pickup truck speeds through their red light. Now looking back, my moment, fear and anger, was greatly impacted by their moment, stupidity and ignorance. These moments do contribute to storylines – His: I am powerful, more important, and entitled, or, Mine: I am too often helpless and powerless and we should take better care – but the reality is that guy is not more important and only momentarily more powerful, and I am not going to save the world. Regardless, I believe we will both continue to work at connecting the dots.

So I suppose what I am saying is, as a human I am compelled to assign meaning but the meaning or purpose I assign is a superficial layer masking life, and the life underneath is the moment. I am definitely not saying live only in or for the moment, and I don't think I am saying one should not work to properly interpret past moments or positively influence future moments, but I think I am saying one should not get so caught up in any given moment that it is transformed into an entire life or an episode or even an anecdote. Dots are dots.

…and though the connective tissue between them may allow a canvas to be stretched giving the appearance of integrity and (depending on the skill of the creator) even beauty, the building blocks remain a jumble of random, disjointed, wandering moments.

Dots are dots.

This is life.

There used to be a zone dividing too soon and too late. I believe in too soon, but I could argue it should never be too late but do understand that there frequently comes a point of acceptance; giving in. So acknowledging its practical reality, it appears to me that this zone has narrowed, considerably from the time I started paying attention (decades ago) to now; in some places to the point where only a blurred line remains. Today it is like one millimoment we are saying it is too early to tell and the very next we are saying we have expended too much time and effort to turn back now. I believe this stems from our ever-growing personal fear and dislike of criticism, so we hesitate holding others accountable and over time this hesitation has become the norm, pushing the point where we should have questioned status quo so close to acceptance we are unable to differentiate, and we miss the opportunity. And in hindsight we should regret this lack of decisiveness. I say should because more often than not those who should regret are their selves a product of decisive indecisiveness, so their regret (due to the narrowed-no-zone) is either momentary or nonexistent lessening everyone's potential for learning from mistakes. Furthermore, this decisive-indecisiveness dynamic is strengthened because we don't appear to fear premature action that is expedient and/or congenial. So we make expedient, congenial decisions and fear the difficult ones. And because this path is easier and more comfortable, it has also resulted in layers upon layers of leadership unable to make hard decisions.

Some might argue that hard decisions are made every day, but I believe we might have different definitions. I see a hard decision as a decision that creates as much or more hardship for the decision-maker as it does for his or her constituent(s), whereas most, (I believe), see a hard decision as a decision that creates hardship for another and (momentarily) makes the decision-maker feel bad. Additionally, those who apply the second definition frequently (if not always) confuse expedient congeniality with compassion.

So then, the question becomes, is this mistake preferable to excessive hardship? Or, in other words, is indulgence preferable to injustice? Though the trade-off is not equitable, I'm afraid the answer is still yes; even when it tends to condescend - (which it frequently does). It is sad that we are unable to make hard decisions (according to my definition) to narrow our ever-widening wealth and power gaps allowing us to perhaps work on once again widening the zone between too soon and too late. Accountability would be less uncomfortable if it were not tethered so tightly to injustice. Again, the status quo is not progress, accountability (though today it may lead to it) is not injustice, and most significantly indulgence is not compassion. To move from status quo to compassion to accountability to progress to Justice would require hard decisions. And today we are incapable and/or unwilling.