hopelesshappiness.com

Substantial? Or essential? One's choice. To be substantial is to cause or create. To be essential is to first struggle mightily with uncertainty.

This is my God.

God requires uncertainty. God demands that we question Her existence. God asks that we struggle mightily in every moment, with every thought, with every decision, with every act. In God's mind to be substantial is not enough. In God's mind the greatest sin is Certainty. One who claims to know God goes against God by refuting the Mystery; by belittling another's understanding. To come back to God, or to come to God for the first time, one must first acknowledge the actuality and the necessity of differing opinions; of varied interpretations. Once acknowledged, one must work to understand differing opinions; varied interpretations. And this task, put in front of us by God, is such a monumental undertaking it has never been and never will be accomplished in a single lifetime. I believe this to explain the Mystery; the Uncertainty. Despite teachings to the contrary, God does not want us to know Him, God wants us to know Us; Life; All Life. As a species, one day we may know God. As an individual, knowing Her is not what God requires; or even desires.

To cause or create, to be substantial as a response to our superficiality, is far too frequently mistaken as knowing. To be essential is to admit to the hopelessness of ever knowing and to act accordingly, which for many is unthinkable; and this is why so many reject essentiality and embrace superficial substantiality. Why is it so important to know? Fear? In recent years I have become more afraid of the consequences of knowing than I am of the constancy of uncertainty. And perhaps it helps to understand that the constancy of uncertainty will lead us closer to Beauty, Truth, Wisdom, Justice. And perhaps it helps to understand that the constancy of uncertainty is critical to our survival; and ultimately to our salvation. And perhaps it helps to understand that the constancy of uncertainty is the Will of God.

By saying this, I am not arguing that there is a God. “We should not be arguing over the existence of God or His role. We should be deliberating the existence, conscious acknowledgement, revelation and manifestation of consensus uncertainty.” God is backstage. The Will of God is front and center.

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.

This week I see Life as an effort to balance form, function, discipline, indulgence.

1. Form: The manner or style of arranging and coordinating parts for a pleasing or effective result. Due or proper shape; orderly arrangement of parts. The structure, pattern, organization, or essential nature of anything.
2. Function: The kind of action or activity proper to a person, thing, or institution.
3. Discipline: An activity, exercise, or regimen that develops or improves a skill. The rigor or training effect of experience. Behavior in accord with rules of conduct. Well-considered action or observation.
4. Indulgence: The act or practice of yielding to an inclination or desire.

(Definitions from dictionary.com).

Louis Sullivan said, “Form follows function.” Frank Lloyd Wright said, “Form and function should be one, joined in a spiritual union.” I think I might argue that (ideally) form and function should be one but function should (and more often does) take the lead. I would also maintain that more times than not, indulgence guides discipline; and (again, ideally) discipline and indulgence should be one. But because we are an imperfect species, we will continue to live (in both cases) this natural progression.

Furthermore, from form comes peace or disorder. From function comes purpose or insignificance. From discipline comes reason or fear. From indulgence comes passion or cruelty. Peace will lead one closer to Beauty, disorder to Bureaucracy. Purpose will lead one closer to Truth, insignificance to Convention. Reason will lead one closer to Wisdom, fear to Certainty. Passion will lead one closer to Justice, cruelty to Division. In addition it is logical that Beauty follows Truth and Justice guides Wisdom. And it is logical that Bureaucracy follows Convention and Division guides Certainty. And from there we can further bridge the gaps by studying the thoughtfulness of purpose, the fear of insignificance, the wisdom of truth and the certainty of convention. This is a lot to take in. I would like to disentangle and examine more closely.

Why peace from form? “A pleasing or effective result.” “Due or proper shape; orderly arrangement.” “Essential nature.” These pieces of the definition indicate order and (in my mind) create a calm; a peace. On the other end if these qualities are lacking, there is disorder. And because we instinctively desire order, overwhelming disorder leads us to create a cumbersome and equally chaotic bureaucracy. Whereas the peace found in even a remnant of essentiality brings us around to recognize and actively appreciate the inherent beauty of proper form. So why is form (i.e. Beauty) often subjective? I believe that comes from one's remaining balance of function, discipline and indulgence. As an example, those who subjectively claim beauty in bureaucracy, the geometry of rules, are following the certainty of convention as guided by the cruelty of division. In other words perhaps Beauty is not subjective; perhaps it is misinterpreted by one’s balance of function, discipline, and/or indulgence. If we could meld form and function into one, and likewise with discipline and indulgence, perhaps we would come closer to the Ideal: Beauty, Truth, Wisdom, Justice.

Why purpose from function? Perhaps it is more obvious, a more direct connection to its definition, but one's perceived function or purpose moves beyond itself by creating meaning and providing direction for all other elements. As a human individual, admittedly or not, there is doubt, uncertainty, thoughts of insignificance. And if these thoughts lead to a dominant fear, then one's wisdom and truth can become a certainty entrenched in convention. Convention can be dogma, ritual, doctrine, or simple conformity, loyalty to a state or nation, family, work or social group, religion, ideology, or tradition; anything that provides a pre-packaged, customizable (within parameters) life experience replete with meaning. Much easier to be told than to think. Much easier to belong than to be ostracized. Much easier to be defined than to define oneself. Much easier to accept a truth than to fall short of Truth.

Why reason from discipline? To reason requires discipline. To reason from fact, or from consensus or expert opinion requires greater discipline. To reason from belief based on convention (even seeming consensus convention) is to build on shifting sand. And this is another example of the influence of function or purpose. If one’s purpose is a search for Truth, then discipline ultimately results in a greater wisdom. If however, one’s purpose is to perpetuate convention as driven by one’s fear of insignificance, then discipline becomes a rigorous, regimented certainty; on shifting sand.

Why passion from indulgence? Passion as intensity or fervor reflects an integral and many would argue essential part of one’s Humanity, and from indulgence naturally flows strong often conflicting feelings. So we are faced with choices. To focus indulgence on the inclinations and desires of all Humanity as one, is to move toward greater justice. But not held in check one’s more selfish inclinations and desires can easily transform passion into wanton disregard for others. Be it from overt prejudice, more subtle bias, nationalism, politics, today’s wealth gap, or any number of other entrenched beliefs and behaviors that serve as the first dividers and divisions, the inability of an individual to move beyond oneself or one’s cohort and to understand Humanity as one is the pivot point where passion becomes cruelty and division becomes or remains the norm.

Beauty. Truth. Wisdom. Justice.

It is much easier to pretend to be happy with division, certainty, convention, bureaucracy.

For the first time in my life, I feel like I am stuck. In hindsight though, I have always been stuck. In hindsight previous decisions to become unstuck were in actuality merely a change of scenery and (according to the rules I refused to follow) frequently a step or two backwards. The rules are dumb. But now, today, in this moment, because I am stuck in place, in job, in health, in life, I have no choice but to follow the rules; and pretend that is okay. I am sad. It is not clear to me if it is sadder that I pretended autonomy and independence for 40 years or that I now must, in order to live out the rest of my life, pretend happiness. The definition should have given it away: “Idealism – the tendency to represent things in an ideal form, or as they might or should be rather than as they are, with emphasis on values.” Happiness is unattainable.

I have long maintained that Happiness is the search for Truth and Wisdom implying Truth and Wisdom (capitalized) is unattainable. Now, here I am, later in life finding that the search has been rather inconsequential (at best). I am contemplating capitulation; not in any dramatic sort of way, simply an acknowledgement that I am relatively powerless. I am no match for the dumb rules.

Would it be better to have more power having followed (and worse) believed in dumb rules? Or perhaps attaining even greater power by seeking an Ideal within the confines of these dumb rules? Or am I just as well off, or somehow better off, having searched to no consequential worldly avail yet once or twice (feel like I have) glimpsed an outermost perimeter of Truth and Wisdom and prepared myself for the (very, highly, extremely, very) unlikely possibility of personal power. I will maintain my daily/weekly regimen of thoughtful consideration. Not only just in case, but also because it has become habit and because the rules are dumb.

422 years after a scientist was burned at the stake for insisting that the sun did not revolve around us we still insist that the world does. And those of us who maintain that it does not, continue to be vilified. I may not be burned at the stake, but I am most certainly tied to it. I am put in my place over and over and over again by those who know better. My biggest crime? Searching for answers because I don't know better. To take comfort and be justified in one's certainty requires that those who don't know, those who question, those who seek profundity in uncertainty, be tied to their stake, out of the way, tongue gagged, over there. Though today you may not strike the match, if you know you know, you are made of the same stuff as those who lit the torches back in 1600.

What is perhaps more appalling to me than those who stand up and shout, “Yes! Burn them alive!” is the number of those who rhetorically speak out against it yet stand by and let them burn. “What can I do?” is a frequent refrain; and from one who is tied to their stake, in their place, tongue gagged, over there, it may even be a valid point. But for the one tying the knots or even the bystander free of or less encumbered by knots, it is unconscionable; and to be truthful many of us are periodically less encumbered. I see this what-can-I-do-song-and-dance as more appalling not only because at the least we could stop tying the knots or we could untie some knots or we could stop widening the gap or we could make stronger more consistent appeals, but also because I believe (I want to believe) the numbers have begun to turn about where for the first time in our history we have consensus compassion. Yet our actions (and inactions) serve to bureaucratically maintain status quo and perpetuate injustice.

In recent years the cause of ignorance has been advanced by loud and (sometimes) violent public protests. In past years the cause of compassion has been advanced by peaceful and (sometimes) loud public protests. This in itself, the perception of a turnaround from groups of individuals peacefully protesting ignorance to groups of individuals violently protesting compassion, supports my belief that compassion has become more mainstream; more of a threat. Or perhaps it is the benefit of hindsight that has balanced this scale. Perhaps I see the positive results of the peaceful protests in decades past as weighing more than the status quo encouraged by the violence at the time, whereas today, in this moment, it is the violence that weighs heavier on my mind. Regardless, even if there is a proportionate number of individuals and groups today peacefully protesting ignorance, we need a greater sense of urgency because it has become apparent that the price we will soon have to pay has become greater. We need larger numbers and a peaceful nonviolent way to grab headlines. We need this turnaround to include action and not stop with mere thoughts and verbal gymnastics. We need leaders willing to risk not knowing; willing to seek profundity in uncertainty.

In this vein, this week I have given considerable thought to the uncertainty of God and how that may benefit our growth and even our survival. I have worked to come up with a balanced incontrovertible consideration of this uncertainty applicable and useful to any theological debate. Whether one debates the existence of God and/or His or Her role in our lives, simply by debating I believe we are acknowledging some common factors including intentionality, necessity, the existence of Humanity, and the substantiality and/or essentiality of each Human individual. So if God is intentionality as expressed in Humanity’s existence and if individual existence is substantiality as expressed in causal activity then God (because a very, very large majority of us have no choice but to exist within this structure of causal activity) is for all practical purposes nonexistent; unnecessary. However, if God is intentionality as expressed in existence and if existence is essentiality as expressed in the dichotomous nature of Humanity, then God has suddenly come to life through a synthesis, or at the least a commingling, of constraint and liberation that is necessary for a depth of individual character that can be called essential. Be it (that is one’s character) nuanced or laden with Goodness or Malevolence, Compassion or Cruelty, Empathy or Indifference, a desire for Justice or a self-serving greed, God becomes the creative force. In fact, I believe that an individual character may be heavily laden in one direction (Goodness, Compassion, Empathy and Justice), or the other (Malevolence, Cruelty, Indifference and Greed), but all individuals are necessarily nuanced in both directions, as potentially and actually also influenced by circumstance. This of course means that if God is intentionality as expressed in Goodness, Compassion, Empathy and Justice, God must also be the creative force that drives expressions of Malevolence, Cruelty, Indifference and Greed. To complete this thought, 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. And it is much easier to tie knots and light fires if one is not burdened with constraint or if one is trapped within a creed. And though both of these individuals may lay claim to substantiality as measured by causal activity, neither of these individuals is weighed down by the dichotomous considerations of uncertainty, thus leaving a character (a soul? a spirit?) lacking the depth and weight that is necessary for essentiality.

In any discussion of God I believe anyone, regardless of personal belief, would find it difficult to uncouple God from intentionality. So as intentionality God could conceivably be an interested and/or active party, a bystander or an enveloping ideation. And, as posited above, regardless of individual belief God is required for existence to be essential as opposed to merely substantial, because though substantiality is, well, substantial, it does not require the weightier aspiration or volitional inspiration that essentiality seems to due to the dichotomous nature of Humanity. So in this sense the argument becomes one of substantiality vs. essentiality or ultimately certainty vs. uncertainty. Put another way, from substantiality one may stay put and be certain or one may grow into essentiality which requires one to embrace uncertainty.

We should not be arguing over the existence of God or His or Her role. We should be deliberating the existence, conscious acknowledgement, revelation and manifestation of consensus uncertainty.

Which came first? Or a better question: which is predominant? The superficiality of certainty? Or the certainty of superficiality? On the one hand, to be certain, to be powerful, to be in control, one may instinctively not want to venture too far into darker and more dangerous depths; they are apprehensive. But on the other hand there are those who believe that simply because they know, they know why, thus satisfying their obligations to Truth and Wisdom, not realizing that no matter the depth there is always more. So I suppose it depends upon the individual. One who is afraid. Or one who is ignorant. Ultimately they each (fear and ignorance) flow into one another and overlap, but I do believe that the primary driver is important. In fear one consciously understands there are darker and more dangerous depths. In ignorance, even if on some level there is an inkling, the individual largely ignores their fear of greater depths and the potential for any danger. As humans, subject to human nature, each one of us spend time and effort in both fear and ignorance, and though ignorance may be bliss, (a temporary reprieve), fear is necessary for movement, progress, improvement.

So it makes sense to me that the path logically flows from the certainty of superficiality (ignorance) to the superficiality of certainty (fear) then to the realized uncertainty of depth and on to the profundity of uncertainty.

To faithfully search for Wisdom and Truth one must explore the depths, all navigable depths, of uncertainty. Yet it is a struggle to maintain control and be not afraid as one wades deeper even when footing is maintained, and it is nearly impossible to do so when one is in over their head. This is why we wade back toward shore: to seek stability and insist upon propriety and order. Common superficialities that aid us in this task include rules, bureaucracy, marketing, self, hierarchy, pretentiousness, belonging, certainty.

Our justice today is superficial, comprised of these elements that are close to shore. Our justice today is a political justice: justice that reflects our need for the illusion of stability. Absolute justice is found in the depths, over one's head, in unnavigable waters, from which there is no return. For many, perhaps most, it is not a gradual transition. One moment we are standing near shore, smiling, happy, in control. The next moment we have been swallowed into the depths. I am afraid that as a society, a culture, a species, the same will be true for us; unless we venture further from shore; soon.

Politics is largely associated with our government. But of course there are governing bodies and or individuals everywhere; from families to the workplace to small and large, formal and informal groups and organizations all working to establish and/or maintain control. Politics begins as this struggle for power and control, and is aided and perpetuated by implementation, expansion and justification of rules, bureaucracy, marketing, self, hierarchy, pretentiousness, belonging, certainty; all this dictated and directed from the shallows close to shore. One must have firm footing to practice politics so by definition a politician is an individual who largely acts from some combination of fear and ignorance. And justice as political justice will not save us.

There are no easy answers. We can talk about the profundity of uncertainty, and to better see and understand we can move closer to the darker more dangerous depths, and we can listen to those experts methodically exploring these depths, and we can hear the cries of those frantically treading water and bobbing on the surface of these depths. But from shore today's politician cannot simultaneously market, dictate and execute any kind of plan that will result in any kind of meaningful progress. And to further distract, in today's political arena, where there is firm footing there will be wrestling matches.

Yet we as a people so desperately need an illusion of stability, we (like the politicians) also refuse to listen to the experts, or hear the cries of the drowning, or acknowledge the echoes of the lost; we prefer to believe our politicians will save the day – and for some crazy reason we believe they can do it from shore. Shame on us.