hopelesshappiness.com

I lay there dead, mangled, parts crushed, some strewn about in a mish-mash of gristle, blood, and fat now defined by an unbeating heart, an unthinking mind, an undone spirit. So, of course it is no longer of consequence to me. In fact I find it is a weight lifted. I am no longer mired in my conscious entanglements of arbitrary pedestrian fear.

I am speaking with presumption before the fact and metaphorically of course. The dismantling that I imagine as a horrible accident began decades ago when I first recognized that first difference between instinctive, affective, interpretive and contemplative, and it will end with my death. At that point, and not a moment before, I will know, or not. Whether I die quietly alone, or to much unfounded fanfare, (whether that fanfare be the nature and circumstance of my death and/or the histrionics that follow), I will die quietly alone; mangled; strewn about; gristly; unnecessary.

The biggest question for many is, in that moment after death, will I be looking down upon my mangled parts with some sort of greater Wisdom? Or will my truth merely be strewn about for others to forget, ignore, walk around, or scrape from the bottom of their shoe? The biggest question for me is, over the next few years, maybe decade or two, can I pull or keep myself together enough to be recognizable as a consistently coherent contribution?

Sure, the thought of an unworldly weightlessness, existential or not, does have a certain appeal. But the thought of me mangled and strewn about, (as we all to some extent are), keeps me focused on the task at hand.

Perhaps we are pedestrian because it helps us to deny that we are afraid, anxious, discouraged, apprehensive, nervous, suspicious, timid, abashed, cowardly, trembling, daunted, disturbed, intimidated, perplexed, rattled, disheartened, timorous, upset, worried, distressed. We work so hard to not be these things, we work so hard to prove to others that we are not these things, and in this hard-working waywardness we allow those with more to lose, those who are more afraid, to bluster and fear monger and overpower and we throw up our hands with a little cry of helplessness and continue to pretend and go along. And yet, despite how hard we all work, in the end we are exactly all these things.

If one is looking for assurances, certainty, control there are good reasons to be afraid. And being human, to some extent, each and every one of us would like to be reassured. I believe we find this comfort by trusting in someone or something. I believe our trust is far too often, misplaced. In theory trust works best when mutually reciprocated, and this give and take is most likely found with a someone in a personal relationship. Yet we more often than not tend to dilute and taint our personal relationships with a context. And on these larger scales (such as cultural, regional, national, spiritual identities, systems and beliefs), we find it much easier (often together) to trust prepackaged bureaucracy, convention, certainty, division than to experience the discomfort of unproven, untried change; it is much easier to trust something you (think you) know than it is to trust someone you do not know. Yet, looking closely, trusting someone we don't know is exactly what we are doing in every occasion in which we overtly or otherwise support the status quo. Looking closely, and from a distance, it is more than obvious that the something is not at all trustworthy. The status quo is not working. The status quo has never worked as one can clearly see by looking back and documenting change throughout our history, yet we still fight to maintain it, and for each day, (today more than ever), that it remains the status quo, we should become more and more afraid.

Perhaps in my role as an alarmist, this also makes me a fearmonger. But if we must fear something, (which we must, admittedly or not), I would rather we fear our current trajectory's inevitability than to fear the change necessary for our survival.

I believe by choosing the bureaucracy, convention and certainty of division, (of fearing one another), over the Beauty, Truth and Wisdom of Justice, (of fearing the unknown), one is not choosing conservative thought over progressive thought, nor is one choosing one individual representative over another. I believe this choice is made because it helps us to deny our ignorance and loneliness. We are more afraid of what we should fear less because it helps us to be more comfortable; forgetful; blissful.

And as with arbitrary and pedestrian, if one is to move beyond aware into active, if one is to be truthful about one's fear and/or other failings, one must disengage their ego. I understand and acknowledge that awareness is a necessary step toward change, but it is not change. We congratulate ourselves on our knowledge, put it in a shiny glass trophy case, and pull it out only to dust it off and reposition it so the different angle looks like progress. This week at work a topic reared its ugly head and we all gravely shook our heads and maintained we were working on it, researching, mulling it over, adding it to agendas, creating to-do lists, asking a committee to form a sub-committee. We've been saying these same things for the four years I've been aware. Awareness is not change and at work I have relatively little power. As an individual though, I have more power to actively find advantage in my fear and to use that to move me to action. I did that recently by taking a pay cut to move into a position where after a certain amount of vigorous head-shaking agreement, perhaps I can make a bigger difference. Or, perhaps not. I am, to a greater extent than I want to be, at the mercy of circumstance, and perhaps the action(s) I take will be of little or no or (even) negative consequence. But progress will not come until one moves from awareness to active awareness to focused peace, purpose, reason and passion in the effort to gain ground on Justice. Lofty aspirations. Unrealistic? Perhaps yes, on larger scales, but I don't believe so much so for an individual.

Still difficult though because I am arbitrary, I am pedestrian, I am afraid.

If I am arbitrary to help me deny that I am pedestrian, and if I am pedestrian to help me deny that I am afraid, then it is reasonable that I am afraid because I am arbitrary.

This is a good bit of awareness. I am working to move it to action.

Perhaps we are arbitrary because it helps us to deny that we are pedestrian, mundane, ordinary, commonplace, humdrum, plodding, stodgy, unimaginative, mediocre, dull, plain, simple, generic, unremarkable, quotidian, unmemorable, average, everyday, prosaic, ignorant; and lonely. We work so hard to not be these things, we work so hard to prove to others that we are not these things, and in this hard-working waywardness we maintain and perpetuate existing conventions and power structures constantly reminding the hired help that they are all these things. And yet, despite how hard we work, in the end we are all (each and every one) exactly all these things.

There will always be hired help; someone else to whom one can condescend.

I might argue that it is impossible to graciously condescend. I believe that to condescend must be a conscious act because to feel important is a conscious state of mind. I also believe that no single individual is any more or any less necessary than any other single individual. One can be individually important in a specific circumstance and can even force their will / importance in a power dynamic. To be more important is to create more consequence. To be necessary is to be indispensable. And considering the entirety, (past, present, and future), of Humanity, how can one individual be any more or any less indispensable than another? Indispensability is an absolute. So accepting this differentiation between important and necessary, by definition, to condescend is to consciously stoop or lower one's self to the level of another and if it is a conscious act, signals are sent that it is a pretentious act from an important person. The sadness in this dynamic is that the individual being condescended to must, in most cases, be gracious in their appreciation thus reversing the flow and allowing the pretentiousness to be interpreted (by the important person) as graciousness further stabilizing and substantiating the existing power structure.

I have previously suggested that in any process to reduce arbitrary suffering, one must avoid “the siren call of one's ego.” One must also let go of one’s ego to admit to one's mediocrity; obedience; insignificance. I believe one can and should seek excellence in circumstance understanding that the effort is individual and does not, should not, come at the expense of the hired help.

This past week at work, in a new position, I was asked to attend a meeting alongside directors and department heads not for any value in any potential contributions I may have added to the proceedings but to help set up the food ahead of time and to clean up afterwards. I was firmly reminded of my place. Power is a zero sum equation reeking of ego. This was not a surprise but I believe in an environment where one is required to pinch pennies, cost should not justify borrowing and using hired help of one sort or classification or category to an end that merely stabilizes or substantiates existing power structures. In this case I maintain the hired help should not have been invited. And for those who would hold up the “other duties as assigned” requirement as justification, I would answer in two parts:

1. That is the very definition of arbitrary; and
2. You're missing the point, that point being the delineation, not the task.

I would have come away with a completely different impression and interpretation if all the directors and department heads had pitched in equally. The task itself was not in any way difficult or taxing or demeaning. But no. There was a very clear and definite line drawn between the hired help and the wheels, making me believe that the directors and the department heads would have found it demeaning. As said, it was not a surprise but a disappointment nonetheless.

Arbitrary, whimsical, capricious, fanciful, discretionary, injudicious, erratic, offhand, frivolous, inconsistent, supercilious, irrational, superficial, irresponsible, unaccountable, random, unscientific, subjective, unreasonable, willful. We work so hard, through bureaucracy, convention, certainty, division, to not be these things, we work so hard to prove to others that we are not these things, and in this hard-working waywardness we become blind to Beauty, Truth, Wisdom, Justice. And despite how hard we work, in the end we are exactly all these things.

I see it daily. So many examples of old outdated arbitrary ways and rules and beliefs alongside necessary justifications by way of so many new outdated arbitrary ways and rules and beliefs all leaving us where we are and where we have always been. To break free, we must have the radical courage to never again do the same thing the same way. No habits. No tradition. No convention. If we sit in the same place, with the same view, we will see the same thing, think the same thoughts, act and react in the same ways. We must stand up, move around, close one eye, then the other, then both; we must think thoughts we've never thought before; we must say things we've never said before; we must do things we've never done before; we must shout out at the top of our lungs; we must explore our deepest, darkest corners; we must spend time in our most calm quiet; we must cry in our happy place; we must deny what we know and we must celebrate uncertainty; we must overthrow power; we must despise leadership; we must consider then seek Beauty, Truth, Wisdom, Justice; knowing it will never be found; knowing we will always be lost; believing we can come closer; acting as if we must come closer.

I believe we must.

We work so hard to maintain and justify our old and new outdated arbitrary ways and rules and beliefs because it would take a much greater, more concerted individual effort to do otherwise; to evolve; to save Humanity.

So how exactly does one corral and focus chaos, confusion, disorder such that it leads us away from bureaucracy, convention, certainty, division, and closer to Beauty, Truth, Wisdom, Justice. To begin to do this, each individual must choose then be led by principles of form, function, discipline, indulgence, that follow personal paths through peace, purpose, reason, passion, avoiding the siren call of one's ego.

Yes.

But am I asking for the impossible?

I acknowledge that perhaps for all of Humanity as a single entity, I am asking for the near-impossible. But this should not serve as a reason (excuse) for an individual human to:

• Not work past their ego and the comforts of bureaucracy, convention, certainty, division, to reach toward Beauty, Truth, Wisdom, Justice.
• Not seek collective peace, purpose, reason, passion.
• Not break free.

Though not a law or an expressly-worded right, it was certainly our intention that "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union… …secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity..." Posterity: they were talking about us. And like they did then, today we have also forgotten that one day we will be forefathers. And like they did then, today we have positioned and posed the Blessings of our Liberty upon a stage built of old and new outdated arbitrary ways and rules and beliefs. Their intentions were good. Our intentions are good. Yet we still suffer, arbitrarily.

Resource: “a supply or source of aid or support; [a] means of producing wealth; capability, ingenuity, and initiative.”

Recycle: “to treat or process (used or waste materials) so as to make suitable for reuse; to undergo reuse or renewal; be subject to or suitable for further use, activity, etc.”

To treat a resource as a recyclable is disrespectful and only serves to use it up more quickly.

No matter my potential though, I am not automatically a resource. One must work to become a resource and earn the sobriquet by contributing above-and-beyond value to the overall effort. Until I become a resource, I am a recyclable.

Calling everyone a resource, but treating everyone as a recyclable is inane, encouraging everyone to be a recyclable. Yet that is what we too frequently do and most individuals react accordingly. We treat everyone as a recyclable, first by calling everyone a resource, then by failing to ask questions, failing to listen, and/or failing to follow up; failures often accompanied by (depending on where you sit) reasons, justifications, excuses.

When treated as a recyclable and used up, a resource will (at least for a time) doggedly seek new opportunities for growth and improvement but if unavailable or unfound may slide into the role of a recyclable. When treated as a recyclable and used up, a recyclable will seek new or additional opportunities for self-gratifying justification and lacking (or not caring about) any ego or morale boost may move into a third possibility. When treated as a recyclable and used up, a cog is often allowed to wallow in the comfort of their simplicity.

I believe there may be more honor in being a cog than in being a recyclable. Yet I am fairly certain as a whole we would be better off if more of us aspired to be a resource; and even more so if we were treated as such.

Recently, when I moved from my role as a resource into a different department and role as a recyclable, HR conducted an exit interview asking what could have been done differently to have kept me as a resource. Talk about the proverbial barn door. They followed up asking if I had made my supervisors aware of my dissatisfaction. I had; repeatedly; for multiple years; politely and respectfully. The answer that always came back from my supervisors was that HR within their web of bureaucracy would not approve a just promotion and/or pay increase. HR believes justification is Justice. But Justice would actually require talking to the cows and agreeing to shut the barn door before we wander away. That is hard work (HR believes) requiring many additional layers of bureaucracy, (lots of new rules), covering every conceivable question, answer, response and reaction. HR pretends to be Human Resources. In practice, HR is Human Recycling.

And I am once again a recyclable.