hopelesshappiness.com

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.

To say “you can do what you want” or “you can be what you want” is a lie; a lie that resulted in Trump and Hillary. On the one side, an uprising, a backlash, a revolt, a movement. On the other side, elitist, imperialist, condescending thoughts, words and actions.

Put this way, an uprising should have been expected. Except that not one of the national politicians (in either party) from Reagan forward recognized their rhetoric for what it was; until Trump. And perhaps that gives Trump too much credit. But regardless, he was somehow able to take advantage of this political blind spot by (instead of championing opportunity and hard work as all the others have done) focusing on winners and losers. It struck a chord.

As an individual Donald Trump does not represent, argue nor does he appeal to facts or reason; Donald Trump represents, argues and appeals to emotion and dissatisfaction. And he finds this anger and discontent very close to the surface in those constituents pissed off at Hillary Clinton for putting them in her “Basket of Deplorables.”

As an individual Hillary Clinton very much represents elitist, imperialist, condescending thoughts, words and actions. What I heard in her presidential campaign, directed at more than fifty percent of us, is “You have failed! Your hard work doesn’t matter! But if you vote for me, I’ll throw you a bone.”

So what? Why am I going on about Hillary and Donald? They are part of history now; right? Maybe. Maybe not. But what they represent, (as shown by the more than 74 million Trump votes in 2020), is very much alive and well and politicians are lining up to take advantage of this division.

Perhaps more insidious than Donald Trump appealing to emotion is his parallel appeal to an emotionless old guard working to maintain (and perpetuate) status quo. By inciting emotions, and continuously stirring the pot, fact and reason (and thereby progress or even much change) are stunted and/or nonexistent. This playbook will be copied. Trump was merely right place, right time. There will be others. There are others; jockeying for position.

Though I despise the pretentious hubris of center-left politics and I very much understand the anger and discontent of the working poor vocally represented in the center-right and right, I voted for Hillary in 2016 and Biden in 2020. I chose the possibility of reason, the possibility of bridging wealth and power gaps, the possibility of baby steps, over the division of emotion.

But I know the emotion is still there. I feel it in me; and all around me. And those center-left politicians who ignore it, who believe that with the election of Joe Biden we have put that Trump Monster to bed, do so at their own peril; and even more so at mine.

Forty-some years ago, when we first began hearing from our elected leadership that “you can do what you want” and “you can be what you want” I believe it was spoken as a hope; as a possibility. From there it evolved into a fact, transformed into a lie, became a damn lie, then mutated into Hillary Clinton. Donald Trump (or his handlers) came along and saw the hope that was fact that was lie and worked the same magic (on a shorter timeline) with anger and dissatisfaction to create a platform of lies to hinder progress and (even worse) to circumvent reason. The center-left platform is based on a lie that the center-left politicians believe is a fact, and (accepting the lie that “you can be what you want”), are able to reason from there. The center-right-right and right politicians simply lie, (which in a sense is more honest), and don’t even bother with reason, (which is again more honest).

And this is why we are pissed at Hillary; she is oblivious. With the republicans, we at least know that at least some of them know we’re being played and we know we’re being played. It’s an understanding that appears mutually beneficial. But many of today’s democrats actually believe the crockaganda they are feeding us.

So, if it is not the democrats and if it is not the republicans, then what is the answer?

According to American economist Frank Knight, in a paper published in 1923,

“We cannot accept want-satisfaction as a final criterion of value because we do not in fact regard our wants as final; instead of resting in the view that there is no disputing about tastes, we dispute about them more than anything else; our most difficult problem in valuation is the evaluation of our wants themselves and our most troublesome want is the desire for wants of the "right" kind.”

So what are wants of the ‘right’ kind?

Perhaps the answer will be found in ethical leadership who will recognize the disconnect between 1) a capitalistic generation of superficial wants and the resulting superficial valuation of tastes, merit and morality, and 2) the civic / social and moral generation of wants and desires that will restore dignity, educate, and encourage thoughtful effort, collaboration, compassion and long term survival.

Perhaps it is the market value engine that is the problem. Perhaps if we replace that market value engine with one of civic / social and moral value, our output will become cleaner, more productive and more efficient, generating wants of the ‘right’ kind.

But in this moment, we have the democrats, and we have the republicans.