hopelesshappiness.com

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.

I don’t suppose we have lost it, because we know it is there. It is more that we have chosen to separate it; to put it in its own little box apart from us. We on occasion pull it closer to talk about it, to examine it (at arm’s length of course), and to even (less occasionally) take it out of its box and hold it, talk to it, feel it. Yet as a whole we always put it back in its box and back in its place; over there. And regarding any individual who insists on us examining it more closely, together, we are at times forced to build a box around you and move a discreet distance further away; hopefully not enough to hurt your feelings but necessarily enough to dim and blur. Sure, you can go on and on but from your box I only hear tinny, two-dimensional words. And because your words have become meaningless, you are meaningless.

Appropriate. What is appropriate? Anger is certainly not appropriate because your anger makes me uncomfortable. And because it makes me uncomfortable, I can only imagine the discomfort you must feel. So no. Anger is not appropriate. Anger is not allowed. Sadness? In small doses. To carry on for any length of time is certainly not appropriate and cannot be comfortable, again for either me or you. So if you must be sad, I have this little box that is just your size. Comfort. That is our goal. Be it cheerfulness, happiness, humor, calm productivity, courtesy, pretension, subservience… I could go on. There are many appropriate vehicles for delivering peace and comfort. Find one and join us on our quest for tranquility. There are so many reasons for living in the moment but most importantly the moment has no time for regret or worry. Learning from the past? Living for the future? Bah! Overrated. I’m okay right now and that’s all that should matter. And when I string this okay moment with the next okay moment, and the next and the next and the next and the next and the next and the next, I am comfortable.

Perhaps because it is not lost, it cannot be found. Perhaps it will simply continue to fade until it completely disappears. Yet if you would only hear my anger, feel my sadness, perhaps we could learn to live with it outside its box; outside our box. Nurture it; care for it; really mean it. And perhaps in that manner it will again become three dimensional; with depth, and character, and life. I am afraid. I am afraid that if it disappears, we will disappear. And I am afraid that if we disappear, I will disappear. So I suppose, like you, I am also selfish, but my indulgence contributes whereas yours merely maintains.

We (you and I) assert our allegiance, proclaim its importance, yet we ignore its demands. To uphold its integrity is too often not comfortable. So we put it back in its box. To uphold its integrity requires anger and sadness, the focus of which (if we are serious) should be on our contributions to improving its deficiencies not on further division between factions. Those who perpetuate divisiveness are not serious, just angry. To be serious is to be both angry and sad. To be serious is to learn from the past in order to live in the moment for the future.

But if the moment is comfortable, which, (because I have a window to look through), it is, there is no need to be serious. I built your box (purposely) with no windows. But I still want you to be okay in your moment. So because I want you to be okay in your moment, and because I am generous, kind, benevolent, I will occasionally invite you to join me to look out my window. But when I have extracted enough additional life force from you, and when I believe you have been sufficiently appeased, softened, unknowingly diminished, and when I feel gratified in my largesse, back you go, in your box; over there.

Now as for what's keeping me and it in our respective boxes, over there…?

I earned it! I deserve it!

No, you didn’t. No you don’t. It is a random gift.

It is mine!

Temporarily.

Then it is my legacy! I will pass it on! To family! To a chosen few!

Because they earned it? Because they deserve it?

I can't love you all the time.

I am not asking you to love me.

Well, what then?

If I have to ask, when I ask, you only build bigger and stronger boxes.

I don't see it as a box. I see it as guidance; instruction; boundaries. I am maintaining order, keeping the peace, giving you purpose.

As you have been given purpose.

I create my own purpose.

From inside your own box.

What?

From inside your own bigger box.

No.

Yes.

Enough! I can't love you all the time. Your words have become meaningless once again making you meaningless. I have put you back in your box so if from there you continue and become too great of a distraction, keeping you from your purpose, keeping me from my purpose, you will have given me no choice but to have your box removed and placed in storage. I can make decisions because my vantage point (with its narrow window) from outside your box allows me to see and interpret your who, what, where and why. If you continue I will have no choice but to make decisions accordingly.

Understood. I will continue to fulfill (your interpretation of) my purpose and I will continue to be both angry and sad; and though some may seep out around the edges, I will work hard to keep it inside and, in your presence, maintain a calm productivity tied to subservience. I will do this because in this tangible world I cannot afford not to. You may consider this my gift to you.

It is appropriate behavior, but I see it not so much a gift as your responsibility.

It is a temporary gift.

I would be remiss to not point out my recent generosity, kindness, benevolence; as well as recent invitations to join me and look out my window. And though yes, this acknowledgement was a long time coming, and yes, the actuality does not even begin to close the gap, my hope is that you have been sufficiently appeased, softened, unknowingly diminished. I am gratified in my largesse as you should be. Now back you go, in your box; over there.

It is a temporary gift.

In the last 40 years 40 percent of the NCAA men's basketball national championships have been won by the four teams meeting in this year's Final Four; and interestingly this year’s championship game is being played on 4/4/22. Furthermore, of 137 teams who have made an appearance in the tournament since 1939, the top 10% (14 teams) have captured 48.8% of the coveted Final Four slots, the middle 40% (teams 15 thru 69) have earned 43.4% of the Final Four berths, while the bottom 50% have snuck into the Final Four with only 7.8% of the 332 theoretical possibilities.

There is an even larger disparity in national championships. Using the same rankings, (number of Final Four appearances, with ties broken by national championship then runner-up), the top 10% have 65.1% of the titles, the middle 40% own 34.9%, and the bottom 50% have 0.0%. Incredible! Even if we were to accept as a foregone conclusion that the bottom 50% would never win a championship, based on the percentages of the top 50%, the middle 40 should have won 47.4% of the titles yet they have only won 34.9%! In this land of the Red, White and Blue, there is a myth that anyone can win. This is apparently not true even in an athletic event that is supposed to be contested on a level playing field.

I found some striking parallels.

From the 2022 World Inequality Report: “The richest 10% of the global population currently takes 52% of global income, whereas the poorest half of the population earns 8.5% of it.” Leaving the middle 40% with 39.5%.

Also from the 2022 World Inequality Report: “Global wealth inequalities are even more pronounced than income inequalities. The poorest half of the global population barely owns any wealth at all, possessing just 2% of the total. In contrast, the richest 10% of the global population own 76% of all wealth.” Leaving 22% for the Middle 40%.

And finally, specific to our United States, again from the 2022 World Inequality Report, “Wealth inequality levels in the contemporary US are close to those observed at the beginning of the 20th century, with a top 10% wealth share above 70%.” Specifically in the United States the richest 10% owns 70.7% of the wealth and takes 45.5% of the income, the middle 40% owns only 27.8% of the wealth and takes 41.2% of the income, and the bottom 50% owns a paltry 1.5% of the wealth and takes only 13.3% of the income.

Income is opportunity.

Wealth is power.

If we were to equate Final Four appearances with income and Championships with wealth, comparatively the percentages are scarily similar. Summary below.

Final Four Appearances:

• Top 10 – 48.8%
• Middle 40 – 43.4%
• Bottom 50 – 7.8%

US Income Inequality:

• Top 10 – 45.5%
• Middle 40 – 41.2%
• Bottom 50 – 13.3%

National Championships:

• Top 10 – 65.1%
• Middle 40 – 34.9%
• Bottom 50 – 0.0%

US Wealth Inequality:

• Top 10 – 70.7%
• Middle 40 – 27.8%
• Bottom 50 – 1.5%

Nine weeks ago I drew another parallel between sports and social justice. In that week there was an uproar over the blatant injustice of the NFL overtime rules. I said then, “there is a reasonable chance the rule will be changed to allow for more equitable opportunity.” And regarding social justice, I also asked, “Where is the uproar? Where is the demand for equitable opportunity? Where is the rules committee?” This week the NFL changed their overtime rule. And I am still asking, when will we connect the parallels?

For some weeks now I have been agitated and disturbed by our apparent inability to not only NOT understand the concept of equity (balanced justice according to circumstance), but even more so by our inability to see its importance to our survival as a species. Two weeks ago I expended considerable personal effort to explain equity to myself. I want to understand! In that thought I said, “One who is in a position to actively apply (their version of) truth and reason, by virtue of their position has already tainted justice. There is no way completely around one's loyalty (i.e. subservience) to their advantage in a given power dynamic.” By nature we are selfish individuals and if I’m okay, you should be okay; especially when I am okay AND when I have the advantage of power. Yet even without that advantage most of us find a way to be okay; most commonly by being unimaginatively simple.

If you have read the headlines this week regarding the Final Four, you found frequent mention of blue bloods. And yes, all four of this year's participants are in the top 10%. The richer continue to get richer. Throughout my life I have said that as a fan, sports, athletic competition, should be an entertainment and a distraction. But tear away its sheep’s clothing and we see it for the wolf it is; a reflection of our American way of life substantiating, justifying, empowering and perpetuating wealth and entitlement. Inequity is so ingrained and entangled in every aspect of our being and doing that we can no longer see it, certainly do not care about it and even when given the opportunity we refuse to optimally act on it. The NFL’s rules committee for example, only changed their rule to advance equitable opportunity for playoff games; which comes across somewhere between pretentious and elitist. And due to internal political maneuverings they did not even choose the most equitable option for the playoffs.

Blue Bloods: persons holding exceptional rank and privileges.

No matter the venue, where there is American capitalism, there will always be a class of blue bloods.

I said above, in this land of the Red, White and Blue, there is a myth that anyone can win. Throughout our entire history wealth and entitlement has factored into that equation, keeping it from being so, partially by maintaining a powerful class of blue bloods; even in our games. And in stuff that matters, if we tear away the sheep's clothing of patriotism, partisanship and populism, we find other factors, both episodic and as a constant undercurrent, that show the true nature of the Red, White and Blue; Red Scare, White Power and Blue Bloods. And today it seems to be more public, more conjoined, and more widespread than ever.

And empathy and compassion have become rhetoric and ignorance.

No one will talk to me about equity.

Good fortune I believe puts one on a winning path. And once on that winning path one has more opportunity to widen it, pave it, add shoulders, put a line down the middle, make it one way, and build on-ramps and off-ramps to control access. But in the beginning, there was simply good fortune; luck; random chance of birth and circumstance. And this framework or landscape applies to multiple, various levels of circumstance from our games to stuff that matters. And it is not justice. No matter how adamantly those traveling their thruways insist that everyone has the same opportunity and insist that they are winning because they earned it and they deserve it, no matter how loud they scream it, winning 65% of the championships and 71% of the wealth is not equity.

Income is opportunity.

Wealth is power.

And no one will talk to me about equity.

I am neither here nor there; yet I am. And many (most? all?) who are here, are not. And many (most? all?) who are there, are not. I can no longer unsee or unhear stilted inanity. This leaves me in an interstitial certainty of uncertainty. Flailing; unable to restore inner harmony, congruency, stability. Unable to sway those who are not. They think, they believe, (those who are not) that it is better to be in place than to be. I think, I believe, it is better to be. I walk where they unsee and unhear. They are rooted in place and time, stable, congruent, delusional.

I can step into here. I can travel to there. And then, in place, in quiet moments I am stable, congruent, delusional. But because I am unable to unsee or unhear, when inanity invariably finds me, I am thrust, flailing, back into the in-between.

Because I am unseen and unheard, when I am in place I am without essence; truly, completely invisible; to myself as well as to those here, and there. So to be I must walk athwart; neither here nor there, yet everywhere; with everyone, alone; consequential nothingness.

There are those who want to join the here with the there. And there are those who want to keep here, here and drive there further away. Those who want to join are not working to see and hear; they are simply hoping to unsee and unhear together, more harmoniously, congruent, stable. And those who push away believe that here will be stronger due to a more definitive consensus inanity. They think, when here is stronger, my place is stronger; I am stronger.

I believe for a moment I am heard; and perhaps if I am heard, I will be seen. No. I am not heard, I am merely recognized for a moment because for a moment I was in place and time, mistakenly thought to be in agreement. Is disagreement necessary? Yes. With agreement comes inconsequential nothingness. If all is nothing, I prefer consequentiality. Consequentiality confers essence.

If I am to be, I cannot be here, or there. If I am to be, I cannot be stable, congruent, delusional. If I am to be, I must work to be seen and heard from my flailing state of concealed consequentiality. Today I will continue to be unseen, unheard. Perhaps a necessary progression.

Or perhaps this is the delusion.