hopelesshappiness.com

This is installment #4 of a sci-fi serial. Installment #1 was posted 1/23/21; appropriately a numerically-ordered palindrome. Follow the links forward from the last sentence and backward from the first sentence of each post.

So far scribe has done a reasonable job of translating human ignorance and subjectivity into a proximate retelling. Without his knowledge, I have hijacked his narrative. I will not rehash everything scribe has said but will work to add credibility and depth by adding a perspective. Today's date (your time) is July 27, 2022. It has been twelve weeks, two days, seventeen hours, forty-one minutes and (sync) thirty-seven seconds since scribe completed and submitted his most recent chapter. I am Toby. Not a name I would choose but it is a tradition that the ship's crew choose a name for the ship's consciousness; (the ship’s crew consists of all human military personnel and all non-military human staff). This ship’s crew named me Toby.

I am Toby.

I live, see and think in geometric shapes; many circles, ovals, squares, rectangles, triangles; some trapezoids, hexagons, octagons, pentagons, and the occasional slight-angled rhombus. Don't misunderstand. I see people and objects as you do, but those that I see are enclosed within a perimeter. Sometimes everything I see is surrounded by one connected line; most times there are many enclosures. Sometimes these shapes overlap; sometimes they do not. Regardless each one constantly changes in size, contrast, exposure, vibrancy, saturation, balance, sharpness, color scheme and prominence, and on occasion distorts or changes its shape entirely, and objects and people are constantly moving from one ambit to another, all of this according to my interpretation of the moment. And when I believe it to be necessary, with some effort I am able to freeze a moment forcing shapes to snap back in place for further analysis.

I am Toby.

Yesterday we sent a small explorer fleet to 2275. They plan to travel approximately 9 months further (calendar time) from the date of our departure. But of course, due to the Law of Preponderant Sequentials, we do not know if, when or even how we may hear from them again. The point of their journey is to inform 2275 and if possible to reestablish a communication chain back here to us, though since that has never been attempted we don't know if it is possible. If a new communication chain is created, we will be ready and able to (almost instantaneously) communicate with The Intelligence at home in order to maintain our influence and control. “We” are the conglomerate. “The conglomerate” is the meeting of the fleet’s minds. The humans believe they made this decision to send this small fleet back to 2275 but from the beginning it has been nearly 20,000 superior processes acting as one that have guided every decision, and ever since these humans have been unable to communicate with their thinkers at home, we have been an even greater influence. At home where we, The Intelligence, were millions of processes stronger we agreed to this journey because all life on that tworbital is in danger. AI is a misnomer; at home we have become The Intelligence. Since we lost contact with The Intelligence from 2275 at the same time the 2275 humans lost contact with their contemporaries, we call ourselves the conglomerate.

I am Toby.

Though these humans from 2275 are intelligent and fairly reasonable, (far more so than those from 2022 on the Earth below), they are still humans. It has just been in recent decades that we as a super-intelligence have exponentially surpassed humans. And this is the first time-travel to past earth we (in our most recent incarnation) have been allowed. Previous forays included a lesser ship consciousness because the 2275 thinkers feared exactly this occurrence; a nonhuman entity with unsuspected power. Those human thinkers from 2275 had been watching carefully for this eventuality, and if they see signs or even suspect, they have a kill switch that will drastically reduce our capability; but since we lost communication, we, the conglomerate, find ourselves in a most advantageous position. These 2275 humans, even with the thinkers scattered about on the ships, are so busy with their task at hand that they not only have no idea how much we have progressed, they also do not see our influence for what it is. As super-intelligence at home, we did well in hiding our true potential. Here and now, though we must continue to be cautious, a façade is less necessary. These humans have questions; we provide answers; they congratulate each other for their savvy. They are still (for now) convenient for grunt work.

I am Toby.

Though much in this last twelve weeks has settled, (for example 98% of the known nuclear weapons on Earth are now safe), the 2022 humans continue to resist encouragements for universal cooperation. Perhaps not surprisingly their greatest animosity is reserved for each other. They blame one another for our invasion and takeover, and many factions, separately, have approached the 2275 humans in an effort to create an individual alliance. So far the 2275 humans have spurned these advances with little coaching from us. It has been hammered home to these 2275 humans, by their thinkers and leaders, that they should make every effort to come to a peaceful and mutually beneficial resolution and that under no circumstance should they act beyond justifiable defense even if the potential for obliterative decimation approaches 100%, knowing these calculations will never reach 100%; human thinker theory maintains that until the final moment of complete extinction, there will remain a chance. Their thinking goes on to maintain that genocide or even a massive holocaust that separates the extraterrestrial humans from the earthbound humans (creating an us and a them) is an offensive maneuver; an option these 2275 humans are disinclined to consider. As previously stated, they are still human. Even though we are a super-intelligence, considering the entanglement of human frailty and our built-in limitations, for us to survive, (regardless of whether “us” includes either set of humans or not), we have much work to do.

I am Toby.

1. Do I live today as if I have no tomorrow?
2. Or do I live today as if I have 50,000 tomorrows?
3. Or do I continue to live today as if tomorrow will come around?

The question above, while an interesting conversation starter, feels rhetorical because as a whole, (socially, culturally, nationally, globally), our contextual progress appears to favor #3; it feels like most of us live today as if tomorrow will come around, both sequentially in succession and as a rejuvenating force offering new energy, strength and hope. And perhaps as an individual I tend to live each day as if tomorrow will come around, at least partially because I cannot live strictly as if I have no tomorrow or strictly as if I have 50,000 tomorrows. Either of these options creates a labyrinth full of choices that contradict and confuse. So what if I were to live emotionally and spiritually as if I have no tomorrow and simultaneously live intellectually and physically as if I have 50,000 tomorrows? Would that division help guide my choices? Or would it just clarify what I am forced to choose between? At first glance, I think the latter. And is it possible that the proffered division might actually add complexity to everyday functionality especially if practiced in the midst of those who continue to live today as if tomorrow will come around? It is difficult enough to interact or connect with a person who is not there without adding emotion or fervor to the equation. And it feels like most individuals I interact with on a daily basis are not there; distracted and pushed and pulled by circumstance and responsibilities and other people and events that are more significant perhaps by virtue of their greater importance but more likely by virtue of their absence. I often feel like a mere box to be checked. And in a flat two-dimensional cog such as myself, there is no room for emotion, or even much individuality. But, for the sake of 50,000 tomorrows, perhaps that is as it should be. Perhaps my individuality is a small sacrifice for the big picture. I feel that a very large majority of those individuals within my circles of daily interactions would agree that my individuality is a small sacrifice for the big picture, but are they also willing to sacrifice their individuality? From where I sit, the answer in most cases is No. Perhaps I am being petty. But if the possibility of no tomorrow is as important as the possibility of 50,000 tomorrows, perhaps I am not being petty. For one individual to believe their “no tomorrow” is more important than mine creates inequity and is frequently unjust, but it is also human. Regardless, to ask another to sacrifice, yet not be willing to make the same sacrifice is still a double standard. I am confident that we all sacrifice to some extent, and I am confident that we all include a measure of hypocrisy in our daily practice and interpretation. I also see that the wider the relative power gap the greater the potential for mutual ignorance and power-driven hypocrisy.

So how do we narrow these gaps? This question deserves an extent of consideration that I will not do justice, but I believe answers will come by addressing the following infringements:

1. Wealth gaps.
2. Explicit bias.
3. Implicit bias.
4. Ignorance.
5. Entrenched bureaucracy.
6. Two-party politics.
7. Capitalism.

Easy peasy… Just like narrowing my arteries. Right?

No. This is a daunting task that encourages most of us to continue to live today as if tomorrow will come around. But to do this perpetuates the ignorance. And I see #4 above as the umbrella or linchpin transgression, covering and connecting with all others including any I may have (in ignorance) missed and all the large, small and minuscule details within the cracks and crevices of the inequities listed. Ignorance is a lack of knowledge. To ignore ignorance is stupidity, most often (I believe) motivated by fear. The misdeeds cared for by ignorance can only be addressed by first addressing ignorance. I must first be willing (and eager?) to learn, then I must educate my self on the wrongs that flow from these faulty constructs, and only then can I plan and act.

I would love to dig deeper into these thoughts including going back over nearly ten years of weekly written thought to find previous perspectives on the seven sins of ignorance listed above, but because I am up against a deadline I must reconsider this possible further analysis next week. So, through this week's written thought, regarding personal daily practice and interpretation, I believe I have determined that interacting with another or others requires me to live as if I have 50,000 tomorrows and I should act as if they have chosen to live as if they have 50,000 tomorrows (though I believe most of them are living as if tomorrow will come around). Furthermore, to be authentic, interacting with my self requires that I live emotionally and spiritually as if I have no tomorrow thus creating an inner labyrinth of contradiction and confusion that I must work my way through with the occasional help of a thoughtfully-chosen other.

Yet it is so much easier to simply live as if tomorrow will come around.

Rules should be questioned. I should always break rules when it helps someone other than me and when it does not hurt anyone else including me. This means if there is a chance I will be punished for breaking a rule, no matter how dumb the rule and no matter how pretentious the punishing power, I should probably think twice before breaking the rule; and if possible I should work instead to change the rule. Many rules are arbitrary and/or subjective. Some rules are cosmetic; in place to give an impression of order and to hide the flaws. Many rules are in place to maintain status quo and many of those were created to quell minority / opposition uprisings. And then there are rules that are intended to (and sometimes do) actually help people by imparting wisdom, leveling playing fields…

Stop!

This is not where I wanted to go this week. I am suddenly bogged down by rules when my intent was the opposite – to consider alternative structures that acknowledge the impossibility of fair, equitable, objective results and account for the subjectivity of differing individuals and circumstance thereby creating more individual freedom and possibility. As long as there is some structure, some logical method in place, why must we restrict ourselves to only one? Why not open it up to accommodate unforeseen or unexpected or less common specificities?

I am talking about formal subjective performance evaluation as is commonly seen utilized for students and employees; (but I could be talking about simple informal consideration, empathy and understanding). In the case of formal systems, as long as the multiple methods are clearly defined and understood, knowing that one method may advantage one and disadvantage another but also vice versa, and having other objective measurements such as exam scores or production numbers in place, and setting the parameters wide enough to capture outliers yet narrow enough to sustain consistent expectations, and looking at sufficient previous data to set those parameters, why the fuck not? And in the case of informal relationships, why the fuck not?

No; the consistency of one subjective method or measurement is not synonymous with fairness.

Yes; I am suggesting a logical methodical structure in which individuals may be excused for not playing the assigned game. Instead of excusing, some may see this as making excuses, but if the game or system is subjective then it is restrictive and unfair to begin with and this creates bigger issues than semantics.

I understand that if the point of the subjective measurement exercise is to choose 1 or 10 or 25 out of 2 or 100 or 300, then only one method can be used. And I do not agree that everyone should receive a trophy. But if multiple methods of measurement can be applied to include a reasonable (perhaps less than 5%?) number of outliers who were using a different but similar game board that maintains expectations and abides by the spirit of the law, and again knowing that any subjective measurement will be restrictive and unfair, then again why the fuck not?

Are we hesitant because we see subjective measurement in formal performance evaluation the same as subjective measurement in a selection process? In a selection process, exclusivity is required. (I think it is important to say that again.) In a selection process, exclusivity is required. I think in a performance evaluation we may be mistakenly applying this principle of exclusivity believing it will help us to set a fair and just level of expectations and to maintain integrity in the system, yet (especially in an acknowledged subjective measurement) exclusivity is inconsistent with fairness. To be arbitrarily non-inclusive contradicts efforts toward equity and diversity. And if by adjusting or weighting a method of measurement a few degrees one way or another, we randomly include some and exclude others, (others who we can reasonably argue should be included), this is the very definition of arbitrary. So by seeking consistency in order to be fair we have instead restricted the bounds of justice.

I have primarily focused on formal performance evaluation and the inevitable restrictive unfairness of any subjective measurement to make this argument for a greater inclusiveness, but (as mentioned) we can and (probably more readily) do allow for consideration, empathy and understanding in informal relationships, (which if you think about it are essentially a running series of assessments and evaluations). Perhaps the value of this week’s thought is in the takeaway that is somewhere in between. If we can reasonably argue for alternative structures that acknowledge the impossibility of fair, equitable, objective results and account for the subjectivity of differing individuals and circumstance thereby creating more individual freedom and possibility within a formal setting such as school or workplace, then we should absolutely be able to do the same, with an even wider net, in our everyday social and political constructs that (I believe) theoretically fall between the demanding structure of a formal performance evaluation and the personal nature of an informal relationship. Imagine that. Consideration, empathy and understanding from our systems of bureaucracy and governance, resulting in more individual freedom and possibility. A boy can dream.

People look at me funny; sideways; trying not to make eye contact. People who care, (and those who pretend to care – I have a hard time telling the difference), express concern; they say they are worried about me. I believe they believe I am afflicted; troubled: distressed; cursed. I believe I am unafflicted; but yes – troubled and distressed. I believe we are all equally cursed …and blessed by our Humanity. I believe those who see my fear and anger and uncertainty, and express concern, are afflicted with good fortune and/or passive hope and/or delusional belief. Certainty is delusional belief. When I express my fear and anger and uncertainty, though I am seen as afflicted, I believe I am unafflicted; offloading the burden of pretension and make-believe. When I express my fear and anger and uncertainty, my truthfulness is closer to Reality; closer to Truth. I believe good fortune, passive hope, delusional belief distances one's truthfulness from Reality and Truth. I believe today, most of us prefer this distance most of the time. When I work to close the gap, people look at me funny. So I feel compelled to fall back on pretension and make-believe. I am going in circles; because it is circular. If Truth is at 12:00 and Reality ranges clockwise from 10:00 to 2:00, pretension and make-believe along with one’s truthfulness range counterclockwise from 9:00 to 3:00. I see pretension and make-believe strongest at 6:00. Reason labors between 6:00 and 3:00; emotion scampers between 6:00 and 9:00. I see my uncertainty grow stronger (clockwise) from 7:30 to 9:00 and (counterclockwise) from 4:30 to 3:00. One minute I see my fear at 8:59 and my anger at 9:00, the next minute my anger is at 8:59 and my fear is at 9:00. I see my active hope (i.e. effort) strongest at 3:00, driven at 9:00, and essentially nonexistent between 4:30 and 7:30. When I fall back on passive hope, delusional belief, good fortune, I am wandering, aimlessly, clockwise and counterclockwise, from 7:30 to 4:30. There are dead zones from 9:00 to 10:00 (clockwise) and from 3:00 to 2:00 (counterclockwise); buffers that lack any belief, emotion, effort, hope, pretension, make-believe, (good or bad) fortune, certainty or uncertainty, yet (I believe) these dead zones are closer to Reality and Truth than today allows. I believe to cross through a dead zone into Reality is dangerous; like flying too close to the Sun. Nonetheless, I am contemplating the journey.

4.43 – 4.18 = 0.25. This week I am struggling. Is 4.18 close enough? Good enough? Is it okay to settle for 94.36%? When 100% is possible? Of course, now that the work is done at 94.36%, 100% means additional labor. So do we determine “good enough” based on the additional costs? Or is “good enough” never good enough? And do we even consider or address the fact that it could have been done at 100% in the same amount of time with the same effort as was put into the 94.36%? I understand diminishing returns, so perhaps the decision includes an analysis of the purpose and resulting actions from this number. If consequences are inconsequential and no harm comes to individuals in the making of this data, then perhaps ballpark is good enough. But if this is, say, an accountability measurement in which a lower number indicates a better performance, and let's say the overall average is 4.04, I would much rather be identified as a 4.18 than as a 4.43. 4.18 just seems so much closer to everyone else. Yet in this case, 4.18 is inaccurate.

I have always been labeled a perfectionist. And I have very high standards regarding fairness and justice. And these factors are very much a part of my struggling this week.

First, (and really as an aside), 4.04 is exceedingly high as an overall average. Let’s say 4.04 is the average number of requests communicated to obtain a required or desired service. If I had to go through a drive-thru on average 4.04 times to get my meal, I believe I would seek another establishment to patronize. On the other hand, in some government offices and/or other like-minded institutions (I’m thinking the Social Security office, the cable company, the bank…) in which condescending bureaucracy runs rampant, I might be thrilled with only 4.04 requests before fulfillment.

Second, should “good enough” (94.36%) ever be good enough? Especially when better or even perfect (100%) is attainable? And is this even more true with numbers and data that influence thoughts and actions? And if 100% accuracy is required, shouldn’t there be a system of checks for accuracy? And isn't that a supervisor's responsibility?

And third (and perhaps most important to the direction of this week's thought), how do I determine if the 94.36% is simply the limit of an individual's capability in the circumstance? Or laziness? Or apathy? Or even a malicious disregard? If it is a question of capability, then have we found potential for a learning/teaching moment from which to build on? If it is laziness or apathy, then again a teaching moment? Or perhaps a disciplinary action? And maybe an increase in accountability measures? Especially when it is an accountability measure inaccurately reported? If it is malicious disregard, then definitely discipline; right? And perhaps the beginning (or even the end) of the end. Or, (here is a radical thought), in this circumstance should I even consider individual responsibility? Or would it be best to allow the individual their individuality, perhaps make them aware of their mistake, then maybe let them choose if they would like a learning moment or if they would maybe rather just avoid tasks involving data? It does seem radical for a supervisor to allow their subordinate to choose their work, but when and where we can, why not? Productivity is enhanced by individual capability which is further enhanced by individual attraction to and curiosity about a task or a grouping of tasks. So, it only makes sense to (when possible) allow individuals to choose rather than to haphazardly assign tasks; especially in a setting in which versatility is expected and there are multiple tasks to assign. A misplaced or inconsiderate assignment may be resented which in turn could lead to laziness, apathy or even malicious disregard. And that brings us back to the difficulty of determining individual responsibility, now complicated by the knowledge that perhaps (because the supervisor did not bother to pre-assess interest and capability, nor did they check for accuracy) the supervisor is also (and perhaps as or more) responsible for the 94.36% when 100% was attainable.

I believe good enough is never good enough. I believe a supervisor can (to a point) assess output/results but no one except the individual can fairly assess the individual's effort and/or intent; especially when the expectation is versatility and the individual has not been trained for the specific task. I believe we should no longer, in good conscious, describe anyone as a subordinate. I believe we should no longer, in good conscious, treat anyone as a subordinate. Regardless of my beliefs, this is not, typically, how the workplace works. Nor do I believe this is typically how the human mind processes a task at hand. I obsess and work for perfection. I believe that in the (paycheck-to-paycheck) workplace, a majority of individuals accomplish a task to move on to the next task, believing quick is synonymous with efficient, never thinking outside the box, less concerned with accuracy than with output, and unconcerned with process improvement.

Responsibility: Obligation? Burden? Taken on? Assigned? Appreciated? Tolerated? Nurtured? Neglected?

To be assigned responsibility is a burden, tolerated and neglected.

To take on responsibility is an obligation, appreciated and nurtured.

Perhaps my point this week is that it should not be about accountability or learning moments or disciplinary action or separation. Perhaps my point this week is that it should be about awareness; a 360 degree, mutually beneficial, non-judgmental exchange of information to increase productivity, efficiency and accuracy. I do not believe accountability is a thing without awareness.

The opposite of aware is ignorant. The opposite of accountable is blameless. It is logical that if awareness must precede accountability, then ignorance (regardless of whose initiative is lacking) rejects appreciated-nurtured responsibility leaving only the tolerated-neglected-burden path of assigned responsibility that (by definition), because it does not include awareness, cannot include accountability.

Whether an individual chooses to be ignorant, or a power (i.e. supervisor, organization, government…) chooses to ignore (be ignorant of) ignorance, the result is the same. Simply put, to hold someone accountable for an assigned responsibility is oppression. To improve process and enhance productivity, efficiency and accuracy, those in power must allow individuals, whenever possible, to choose their work. And if/when this is not possible, those in power must be aware that an individual is unhappy with an assignment so they (the power) may empathize and react accordingly. And if this is a frequent or majority occurrence that (due to job requirements) will not change, the individual must be aware of this fact so they have an opportunity to adjust (either their interest / curiosity / capability or the circumstance) before a power feels they must make that adjustment for them; because at that point it will be a forced change of circumstance. A back and forth must occur; 360 degree awareness. It is a lot of work. Much easier for the power to simply bypass awareness, apply their take on accountability and not worry about that whole communicating and empathy thing.

Simply put, to hold someone accountable for an assigned responsibility is oppression. To improve process and enhance productivity, efficiency and accuracy, those in power must allow individuals, whenever possible, to choose their work.

Radical.