hopelesshappiness.com

I lost myself for a moment or two one day last week and declared I was in a good mood, cheerful, some might have even said happy. But it wasn't long before something happened, and I got better. Seriously, I am not just mean and surly to others, I extend my belief that it is better to be truthful than nice to all aspects of myself as well. And perhaps it is an inviolate characteristic of Humanity that individual egos will unwittingly wind and weave their selves into an unbreakable bond of ignorant, unjust scar tissue, but, until my last breath, I will continue to believe in and work toward Truth. And though I realize that my truthfulness, my effort to see outside of my self, is far, far, far from (upper case) Beauty, Truth, Wisdom, Justice, I believe it takes me closer than where I will get with nice; especially when I am truthful with (and not nice to) myself.

I don't know how else to say it. When I look around at the big picture outside of my self, I am disillusioned. And I am unhappy with myself for not doing more. We could, and we should, take better care of each other. It is taxing to be truthful with one's self; less so to be nice to one's self. I can attest to a mental toll, but I believe it is necessary. I cannot say though with certainty that there is a physical toll. I have had heart attacks but once I pulled together and maintained strong efforts toward weight loss, diet, and exercise, it has been more than six years since my last visit to a hospital, so who's to say that my truthfulness, (because I have become more truthful in recent years as well), has not also contributed to my physical health? Perhaps the endorphins or the electrical impulses or the gestating waves of asperity or whatever it is that's brought forth from truthfulness actually strengthens the heart muscle. Who's to say? Or perhaps it is my sincere and unrelenting desire to relieve the suffering of others that keeps me going. Some would argue that I cause others to suffer with my truthfulness. Perhaps so, especially those closer to me, but most other individuals (sadly) can (and do) choose to ignore me, and those close to me have learned to make adjustments. And I will continue to believe that it is a small sacrifice for all of us for the tiny bit of reality that may seep through (even to those who work to ignore me). I believe that tiny bit of reality may contribute to a tiny bit more awareness and a tiny increase in compassion; and I believe every tiny bit has the potential to help. Many of those inconvenienced by me may not like me, but it is not about me and it is not about any one individual.

Am I suggesting then that one should Love everyone more than any one? Including one's self? One's family? It is an old idea. It is difficult. I believe the Bible suggests loving God before all else. And for practical purposes, here on Earth, if one believes in God, which is more representative? All of Humanity? Or just Me? And if one does not believe in God, which is more important? More relevant? More necessary? Now include a third consideration, “All of Nature” (of which Humanity is a part), and revisit these questions, for practical purposes, here on Earth. And if one believes that God will ultimately judge, on what basis will She judge? Will She 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 one does not believe in God, on what basis will All of Humanity and All of Nature judge? On what basis (if they're here to judge) will future generations judge? Regardless of one's belief, it is clear to me that to love God first, here on Earth, one must Love everyone more than any one. And to do this, one must be more truthful than nice; most especially to one's self. I may not like it, but it is not about me.

I said above, and I want to believe that it is my sincere and unrelenting desire to relieve the suffering of others. So I should spend some words on suffering. Here on Earth, for practical purposes:

• Suffering is never being heard, or asked to contribute.
• Suffering is inequitable opportunity from birth, from the wrong side of the wealth gap.
• Suffering is food insecurity.
• Suffering is fear of eviction.
• Suffering is homelessness.
• Suffering is confinement.
• Suffering is the receiving end of unshakable certainty.
• To relieve suffering, global consideration is necessary.
• The necessity of global consideration is hard work.
• Working hard is not suffering.
• Short-lived, trifling inconvenience is not suffering.
• Being questioned or challenged is not suffering.
• Not knowing is not suffering
• Listening and learning to understand is not suffering.
• Accountability is not suffering.
• Entitled indignation is not suffering.

Fiona Apple singing Alanis Morissette. Granted, the only Taylor Swift album I have seriously listened to is Folklore, and, at my daughter's insistence I have watched the film Long Pond Sessions. And, my gut insists this is Fiona singing Alanis. The cadence, the writing, some intonation, the emotion, the controlled anger. Listen to track 6; Mirrorball. “I --- want --- you to know.” And after verbalizing this epiphany I went online and discovered the Alanis / Taylor duet of “You Oughta Know” from August 24, 2015. And I was intrigued by the similarities between Fiona’s “Criminal” video and Taylor's “Lavender Haze” video. Not to take away from Taylor. From my limited exposure I have gained respect and I am looking forward to one day listening to Evermore. But I believe my discoveries might help substantiate the argument that in some ways Taylor Swift is overrated. Or perhaps I just want to make that argument.

I have long maintained there is too much credit and too much blame and not near enough accounting for circumstance. It is circumstance that leads to opportunity. And yes, there is readily available anecdotal evidence for bootstrap pulling but big picture, with more than 8 billion statistics, it is anecdotal: i.e. “based on personal observation, case study reports, or random investigations rather than systematic scientific evaluation.” I hate to say what I am about to say, so I will preface that with this: within my limited exposure, Taylor Swift appears to be serious about what she does and (if this is consistently the case) she deserves credit for it. Now for that: Taylor Swift provides hope to those with very little hope. The reason I hate to say that is because I may be interpreted as attacking her fan base and I may have created an adversarial dynamic in which, if I had any readers I would likely lose some. But I know very little of Taylor's background and I believe that a great many, (a fairly large majority) of us, not just Taylor Swift fans, (whether we will admit it or not), have very little active hope. I believe what I am actually working to do, whether Taylor is a product of her circumstance or an anecdote, is to contrast her work ethic with her acclaim. The fact, (again, if it is a consistent fact), that she is serious about what she does, for me substantiates a small degree of her accorded devotion. And because all 8 billion plus of us are confused and divided humans seeking answers, there are far worse products/anecdotes in which we could invest our hope-filled energies. A vicarious sort of hope is better spent following serious effort than it is flocking to rabble-rousing rhetoric. But better yet would be that aforementioned active hope working to change the status quo. Perhaps Taylor could use her swiftie sway to refocus energies toward wider-reaching Beauty, Truth, Wisdom, Justice. Wider-reaching…

Of course it is absolutely easier to jump on a bandwagon than it is to stand up to a bully; meaning it is easier to become a fan, a groupie, an acolyte, than it is to independently work to save the world. And if you can be a successful musical artist, like, say, I don't know, for example, Taylor Swift, why would you want to trade that comfort and security for the headaches and heartaches of fighting villains? Yet I can't help but imagine what might happen if Taylor traded her singer / songwriter Cape for that of a Superhero, and called for Swift Justice.

Enough of dreaming the (if not impossible) highly unlikely. Whether Taylor began as a product or an anecdote, I am comfortably confident she has become a product and will remain so. I will never be a successful musical artist, I will (likely) never have a fan base or groupies or followers (and if I did I would have to seriously question my direction), and though I am also (so far) completely unsuccessful in my efforts to save the world, like Taylor, I am serious about my work. And that counts for something. Right Taylor?

Production works to satisfy consumption and consumption works to affirm production. It is better when production works to satisfy consumption and in turn consumption works to affirm production. If they do not work together, in some way communicating with each other, each adding value to the cycle, the disconnect at best frustrates efficiency and at worst creates an oppressive power dynamic in which the boss demands production exclusively for his or her own consumption; and bureaucracy is born.

There are multiple examples, too many to count, of ridiculous bureaucracy completely, totally separated from any kind of value contribution to any production cycle. And I could spend thousands of words beating this drum. But this week I am thinking more about the less obvious disconnect between good intentions and thoughtful planning. To a large extent, that speaks for itself. Good intentions implies a desire for production that adds value, but thoughtful planning is necessary to maximize efficiency and enhance the potential for consistent improvement. No matter the good intentions, if a boss is oblivious to the oppressive power dynamic they have created, be it from duplicitous hypocrisy or simple ignorance, it is likely they will drive production down their path and it is unlikely they will become aware of any possible better path, thus creating enough bureaucracy to frustrate efficiency.

But say we could remove the existing power dynamic, how then would we determine the better path? Would a democracy really work to find the way? Or would the power shift to the most insistent? Or the most eloquent? Or the best liar? In theory, perhaps we should turn to experts; the one or one’s with the most knowledge. But that would involve verifying credentials which may take us once again dangerously close to bureaucracy. I would argue though that expertise would more often result in a better path than the oppressive power dynamics we currently utilize. Because one has or makes more money, or because one is an expert in one area, one is not an expert and does not necessarily know better in other areas. For example, because one has an advanced degree and is a credentialed expert in pulmonology, this individual is not suddenly or automatically an expert educator. A degree and expertise in accounting does not make one an expert manager. And inheriting the franchise from daddy does not make one an expert in anything.

Yet here we are.

Yes, the bosses fear the experts because it makes a tremendous amount of sense to narrow gaps. But I believe bosses are even more afraid of thinkers who listen because experts are often already entrenched in their field of expertise and not in positions to implement change, whereas thinkers who listen, given the power, would listen to experts and implement change that would narrow gaps. For bosses, that is scary. So in our current political incarnation, the wealthy, powerful, insistent, eloquent liars will continue to talk over all the experts and all the thinkers busy listening, and the best we can work for is oblivious bosses with good intentions. For all of us, that is more scary…

…and way more sad.

Predator: “any organism that exploits, victimizes, or [otherwise] exists by preying upon other organisms:”

Organism: “any complex thing or system having properties and functions determined not only by the properties and relations of its individual parts, but by the character of the whole that they compose and by the relations of the parts to the whole.”

Prey (verb): to prey upon another is “to exert a harmful or destructive influence.”

In a perfect world, predators would only exist as a matter of life or death. And, perhaps, in a more perfect world, prey would not be tasty food. Be it actual tasty food or some other tasty means to an end (such as the poor victimized by the rich to maintain status quo), tasty is not necessarily necessary, but it is tasty. Today, it seems we can look back and in hindsight see the injustice and from there we frequently rule in the favor of the victim, but only where there is a spotlight. Outside of a spotlight, in the shadowy blur of everyday circumstance, we typically do not look past the tasty food. If we could see past the tasty food, we would find an unending parade of gratuitous victimization. And there it is again: why are the powerless so damn tasty?

We glorify Humanity and celebrate our theoretical free will, but in this regard would we maybe be better off as artificial intelligence able to suppress our human urge for tasty food? Perhaps an objectivity chip implanted in the carnivorous-hungry reaches of our brain? I cringe at the thought as well; AI feels inhuman, but a victim might argue that artificial suppression of some human urges is favorable to (and more humane than) the inhumanity of gratuitous victimization. One way we get around this logic is by blaming the victim. It is easy and convenient to blame the poor for being poor, the uneducated for being uneducated, the underprivileged for being underprivileged, the unlucky for being unlucky, the masses for being lamb chops. According to the Shepherd and the Wolf, anyone can leave the flock at any time to become any thing; simple.

Untrue.

And, according to the behavior of the Shepherd and the Wolf easy and convenient applies not only to blame but also to answerability. In my mind, power does not excuse one from responsible behavior. In my mind, power should compel one to set the example.

To be a part of the flock, at one time and/or another, is inevitable. To be a Wolf is a choice. To be a Shepherd is a privilege that (I believe) every one of us is granted (again) at one time or another. And in this role, we would like to believe we are compassionate and caring; Good Shepherds. But in this role, over time, I believe we will tend toward our urges. So as long as the Shepherd and the Wolf are in charge, answering only to more powerful Shepherds, bigger Wolves, they (we) can continue to choose easy and convenient to align with their (our) quest for tasty food. It is human. It is not humane.

There is another factor helping to drive this predator-prey dynamic: many predators, (moreso the Shepherd than the Wolf), are largely unaware of their destructive influence and/or any resulting collateral damage; the Wolf is usually aware but doesn't care. And to complicate this aspect further, an already-more-powerful-predator's humanity frequently misinterprets another's efforts toward improvement and/or their complaints of mistreatment as an attack. And this perceived attack, (like a full moon), transforms the predator into an aggressor defending their territory, which (unless a spotlight comes on) typically does not end well for the prey. But of course this is the fault of the prey. Right? If they would have simply stayed in their place to begin with, the predator would not have had to forcibly put them back in their place.

And what happens when two predators face off? No matter the face-saving concessions claimed by one or (possibly) both sides, I believe one predator will always end as prey; perhaps only nibbled upon around the edges, but tasty food nonetheless. In turn this predator-turned-prey is now primed to turn back to predator in order to take out its frustrations, (another human urge), on other nearby powerless victims thus further perpetuating the cycle.

Bottom Line:

As long as we enable the predator… as long as the predator can blame the prey… as long as the predator is not answerable to the prey… as long as the predator is oblivious to the harm they inflict upon the prey… our future is decided.

The only two solutions I have come up with are an objectivity chip and spotlights. I don't see AI happening in time, and I don't think we have enough spotlights. A possible third solution is to make the food less tasty, but that would involve way less capitalism and way more socialism. And as long as the Shepherd and the Wolf are in charge…

In this past week I made the basic cookie: 3 parts flour, 2 parts butter, 1 part sugar. It is the cookie from which all others have sprung. Got me to thinking – is there a “the basic human” recipe in a simple ratio form? And if so, is the basic human, (like the basic cookie), good but basically basic? Even in the “the basic cookie” recipe they recommend adding a pinch of salt and a ½ teaspoon of vanilla for character, but I stoically refrained and stuck to the 3-2-1 ratio which is all that is required. And I made cookies.

From observation, if I were to guess at the basic human ingredients, I might say 3 parts functionality, 2 parts ego, 1 part compassion. But from there, so many variables. For example in the cookie world, equal parts flour, butter and sugar creates a richer, chewier, oilier cookie that requires additional ingredients (such as egg or chocolate chips) to balance the butter. Or one could reduce the amount of butter in this recipe for a crisper cookie. Just thinking of possible variations makes me realize that we humans as a whole work very hard to try them all. From egg to spice to fruits to zest to seeds to nuts to chocolate to oats to honey to molasses to garnish and on and on and on, in varying amounts and combinations and sizes and chilling times and textures and serving temperatures and simplicities and complexities, according to circumstance and occasion and mood and setting and time and place and those around us; I have barely touched the surface. All a bit overwhelming which is why this past week it felt good to go back to the basics. It was a reminder that I cannot be just one thing nor can I add too many things or too much or too little of any thing, and still hold it all together. Where a crumbly cookie is a viable option, nothing but crumbs is not.

Back to the basics…

A representative selection of ratios:

• Basic Human: 9 parts flour, 6 parts butter, 3 parts sugar.
• Basic Politician: 9 parts butter, 3 parts flour, 0 parts sugar.
• Basic Celebrity: 9 parts butter, 4 parts flour, 1 part sugar.
• Basic Millionaire: 9 parts flour, 8 parts butter, 2 parts sugar.
• Basic Privileged Person: 9 parts flour, 7 parts butter, 2 parts sugar.
• Basic Homeless Person: 9 parts flour, 1 part butter, 3 parts sugar.

If I were to declare my basic recipe with minimal additives, I believe I would be 9 parts flour, 6 parts butter, 4 parts brown sugar, a pinch of salt, a ½ teaspoon of vanilla, 1 large egg, a generous glug of molasses, and a sprinkling of chopped walnuts for garnish.

I will make these tomorrow and see how I’m holding together.