hopelesshappiness.com

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.

I refuse to believe there is no escape. I feel a need to escape but I recognize my need for a paycheck as a greater need. So I must think this through, carefully. This recent line of thought has had me wrestling with these two questions:

• Escape from what? And
• Flee to where?

I have been thinking I've had a good idea of the what, but I am struggling with the where. If I flee to a where that is essentially the same what I am working to extricate myself from, a new desire to escape will again begin to build; and I am finding most wheres I have considered, eerily similar. The only advantage to new scenery is that it might provide a small reprieve in which (for a little while) I can pretend. A need to escape implies a confinement of some sort which begs the question, in what (if any) circumstance is an individual today not restrained or held in check by some greater power? With all this in mind, I can still answer (in broad strokes and specifically) what I want to escape from, but as I am beginning to realize, it severely limits my options when I consider where to flee to. So of course if I flee regardless, the what when I get there will likely not be the Ideal opposite I was hoping for, but likely will include kindred power struggles providing only that aforementioned small reprieve. Some have the wealth/power to create a personal what that they perceive as fulfilling their desires, (I don't), so instead of feeling a need to escape, these lucky individuals work to maintain. It is this systematized power dynamic that ultimately, successfully implores many of us to embrace our place; to stay put; to pretend. For most of us, it appears that our only choices are 1) this oppressive acquiescence or 2) the shuffle-step-sit-shuffle dance-of-1000-paper-cuts that we do so well. Yet I began these thoughts saying I refuse to believe there is no escape.

I am looking for a where, (somewhere – anywhere), that provides the what I desire. I have heard of such employers who hire people, not titles. And if you asked, I suspect near 100% of all organizations would claim to prioritize people over titles, yet in the hiring process, what comes first? Again, I suspect near 100% of all organizations begin with a title often followed by job classifications and categories and grades followed by applications followed by applicants followed by a few applicants upgraded to candidates followed by (one-sided) interviews all before this regimented process actually produces any semblance of a people. Damn the bureaucracy! Perhaps I don't want to be a title or an applicant or an interview. Perhaps I just want to be recognized as a people and considered for my overall knowledge, skills and abilities. This is (a significant part of) the what that I want. If an organization were to consider people first, I can't imagine results being any worse than the shuffle-step-sit-shuffle dance that all this consensus procedural pretense produces. Doesn't it make more sense to form the mold to the contours of the person than to stuff or drop the person into an uncomfortable, ill-fitting preformed mold?

So that's it. Moving forward I will not apply for positions, I will apply only as a whole person to organizations that purport to lack pretense. I have two years before I can retire. I don't really need to retire in two years and of course I will not quit working in two years. So if I am able to find an organization brave enough to mold a job to a person, perhaps they will in return receive 10 - 20 years of productive, efficient, thoughtful, creative value. Pretty good deal. And if I am unable to find such an employer? Then I suppose I will retire sooner and poorer, which in my mind would be a sad waste. We will see if anyone steps up.

I am still learning to cook.

To sustain is “to supply with food, drink, and other necessities of life.”

In this world today, there are more than 8 billion evolving definitions for necessities.

To nourish is “to strengthen, build up, or promote.”

To cook is to work toward sustenance and/or nourishment.

(Definitions from dictionary.com)

To cook seriously is to put forth my best effort, believing my best effort will always be ahead of me.

For me, cooking is cleansing; spiritual; nourishment on multiple levels.

Cooking brings me happiness.

Definition from a friend: “Happiness is something that makes you smile, that gives you a sense of wonder, that you like, that you appreciate, that speaks to you, that brings you joy, that is tied to [but goes beyond] your physical senses.”

I believe Happiness is in one’s search for unattainable Truth and Wisdom. And I believe to experience a sense of wonder and/or joy is to catch a fleeting glimpse of Truth and Wisdom; and to glimpse Truth and Wisdom in this way may encourage one to more consciously seek Truth and Wisdom. But I also believe, as a Human, to consciously seek Truth and Wisdom is to foster dissatisfaction. And for some, to consciously seek Truth and Wisdom is to open oneself to the possibility of debilitating dissatisfaction. Yet dissatisfaction is necessary to strive toward Truth and Wisdom. All of this is why so many of us simplify by seeking comfort and embracing prepackaged truth and wisdom, thereby lessening opportunities for wonder and joy.

Dissatisfaction is necessary to live Life.

To live Life seriously is to put forth my best effort, believing my best effort will always be ahead of me.

To live Life seriously is to consider God.

I believe in the Will of God, so I must believe in God.

However…

“An insistence that God is a mindset or doctrine or ideology is constraint without freedom and an entrenched belief that ‘my’ way is Goodness; whereas an insistence that God is dead is freedom without constraint and a laissez faire approach to responsibility and resolution.”

So to consider God seriously is to question everything, believing my questions will not be answered in this lifetime.

“To claim to know is to deny God. If God wanted us to Know, with certainty, there would be no differing opinions; no varied interpretations. To be certain is to reject personal learning and growth. I do not worship my God; I focus on Her Will. I struggle mightily in every moment, with every thought, with every decision, with every act. I remain steadfast in my conviction that the constancy of uncertainty, the struggle between Goodness and Malevolence, Compassion and Cruelty, Empathy and Indifference, a desire for Justice and a self-serving greed, is necessary for essentiality, which in turn is necessary for survival; and ultimately salvation. This is my God.”

I have been told I am a good cook. I am not. On occasion I get good results I believe because I am not willing to settle for a status quo. I am constantly striving to do better; to be better. I frequently make obvious mistakes and must compromise my plan by shifting into rescue mode. I sometimes think everything has gone as planned only to discover an error or misjudgment in the results. And rarely but every now and then results are such that I am merely left to ask the question, “What can I do better next time?” If I do not ask this question, if I believe I cannot do better, I will not strive to do better. To not strive to do better is to quit. To believe everything is as it should be is to quit. To quit is to not cook seriously. For me, to not cook seriously is to not live Life seriously.

I am still learning to cook.