hopelesshappiness.com

I could be wrong.

I have been to the cath lab in 2010, 2013, 2015, and 2017. I have 8 stents. I came away with stents in each of these years except 2013. My nature is to think in terms of justification. 2010 was a surprise, obviously justified. In 2013 I was anticipatory. In 2013 the cath found increased buildup but not enough to warrant a stent. In 2013 I jumped the gun. In 2015 I waited too long and found (after the fact) some heart damage and decreased ejection fraction. In 2017 I believe my timing was just about right. I am refining my process for seeing this coming, but due to my proclivity for efficiency, this year I may, (like 2015), find hindsight to be better than foresight. If this is the case, I am hoping my delinquency does not become an occurrence of too late.

Increased and more pronounced pains, (angina?), along with an occasional, (though only mildly disconcerting), aching in my left arm, have me thinking that later this year, or possibly in the first few months of 2021, I have a procedure coming.

I could be wrong.

I feel like I was wrong in 2013, and today I don’t want to spin wheels on unnecessary investigation. I want to cut to the chase and (when the time comes) do what is necessary with no delay. If I go today, there will be investigation and I am uncertain if it would prove to be necessary or unnecessary. I can see how it is possible that I have been sensitized to stable symptoms, making myself believe they are worsening, because of the timing. Since 2010, I have visited the cath lab every 2 – 3 years. My last visit was March 21, 2017. I feel due, and perhaps that is influencing my interpretations. So, I can only conclude that…

…I could be wrong.

I will wait.

If yesterday's thought has evolved into today's thought, and if today's thought evolves into tomorrow's thought, and if in every today we are condemnatory of yesterday's thought, would it not be more expeditious to condemn today's thought today? Would it not be more honest and forthright to admit our ignorance and to expend some effort, (otherwise exerted toward conservative justification), toward more progressive thought and action. By definition, progressive is forward and conservative is traditional. To be forward-looking is to be energized, enlightened, dynamic. To be traditional is to be guarded, conventional, constant. To vivify? Or stultify? There should be an understanding of the difference between yesterday’s thought, today’s thought, and tomorrow’s thought.

Today we condemn individuals for yesterday's actions. Yet yesterday's actions were borne of yesterday's thought. Yes, yesterday's thought has evolved into today's thought, but yesterday it was today's thought; as a result, many (seemingly logically) ask, can you blame someone for actions that were (at the time) consistent with thought? I might argue, (that to be expeditious), one's acts should be borne of tomorrow's (more progressive) thought. I might also argue that one who justifies yesterday's acts because at the time it was today is equating thoughts with acts, excusing wrongdoing, perpetuating constraint, impeding progress. There should be a difference, (a very clear, definitive delineation), between thoughts and acts.

There is a difference between history and tradition. History is (theoretically) a fact in the past; something to study and learn from. Tradition is an interpretation of personal history as it relates to a bigger picture. Tradition implies an effort to clothe today in the self-styled trappings of yesterday. When one argues that progressive thought threatens our history, they are in actuality arguing for personal comfort, often in the form of traditional power structures and inequality. Though one can mislabel something as a fact, one cannot argue an actual fact, of the past or otherwise. So, history (as an actual fact) is not (and cannot be) threatened by any type of thought. Tradition is (and should be) threatened by progressive thought. There is a difference between history and tradition.

Is conservative thought always geared for comfort? And is progressive thought always uncomfortable? Take the political implications away, and because the one more frequently espouses status quo and the other more frequently champions change, it does appear that consideration of one’s comfort may have an impact on one’s direction of thought; especially if one is comfortable or was previously comfortable and is fearful of becoming less so. Change is inevitable. Fear is futile in the face of inevitability. Yet fear drives conservative thought, conservative thought slows change, and (according to Fact-Based science) change made too slowly will be the death of us all. My greatest fear is conservative thought. Comfort today? Or existence tomorrow? I believe that this progression from yesterday’s comfort to today’s discomfort to tomorrow’s inevitability is natural and necessary. I believe that when yesterday was today, this progression was interpreted accordingly. In this regard, in conservative thought there is no difference between yesterday and today; in progressive thought the difference (between yesterday and today) is an ever-increasing acknowledgement of fear properly placed.

Progressive thought is expansive. Progressive thought creates possibility. Conservative thought is oppressive. Conservative thought pretends. Progressive thought is reasoned uncertainty. Conservative thought is delusional certainty. There are many progressive Republicans and there are many traditional Democrats. In order to begin healing, we must see our dividedness in terms and within contexts beyond right and left or red and blue. In order to survive, we must better understand this difference between progressive thought, conservative thought and political affiliation, and we must better understand the difference between yesterday’s thought, today’s thought, and tomorrow’s thought, and we must recognize the difference between thoughts and acts, and we must consider the difference between history and tradition, and we must acknowledge fear, and we must agree upon what to be afraid of. In order to survive…

When are you? An interesting question? Perhaps a question with a different answer for each fleeting moment? Or might there be a single more efficacious or familiar answer for each fleeting individual? And how many answers are there? I am the distant past? I am the remembered past? I am the very recent past? I am the immediate future? I am the plan? I am the unknown? I am now? I am not now? I am Utopia? I am the Apocalypse? Are these last two questions actually when questions? Or do Utopia and the Apocalypse nest inside of a when as a where? And, if I answer any of these questions and believe I know, is my perspective truly amenable to objectivity? How would a significant other answer for me? Or a friend? Or a stranger? When are you? An interesting question?

What are you? Another interesting question? Is this question parallel but separate? An accompaniment? A necessary corollary? Another nesting doll? And how many answers are there to this question? I am a reader? I am a writer? I am a storyteller? I am a pontificator? I am a listener? I am a recorder? Or, in another vein; I am a swimmer? I am a kayaker? I am a sunbather? I am a piece of driftwood? I am a sponge? I am an anchor? Are there other significant contexts beyond character and flow? Beyond communication and action? Beyond thoughts and reaction? If so, what? And if I answer any of these questions and believe I know, is my perspective truly amenable to objectivity? How would a significant other answer for me? Or a friend? Or a stranger? What are you? Another interesting question?

Utopia and the Apocalypse? At first they sounded like a when I think because they felt like an aspiration? Or a prediction? Yet I believe there are some who reside in the Utopia of their remembered (or misremembered) good-old-days? And I am confident that for some wartime was/is apocalyptic? So perhaps they are better as a where? Perhaps Utopia and the Apocalypse represent ends of a spectrum along which a fleeting individual lands dependent upon their when? And maybe their what? Instinctively, I believe when comes before what? Yes? No? I think so? And I think what comes before where? Maybe? Yes? I think so?

Can one choose their when? Or their what? It feels like when is more instinctive than what? Or perhaps just more learned? And it feels like what is more dependent on when? I believe I can more readily choose to be a reader and an anchor or a writer and a kayaker than to not be the planner or the piner or the worrier? Perhaps this then leaves where dependent on what?

How? Who? Why?

How is folded into what? How is this moment? How stands apart from all other when, except now? How is the detail?

Who is wishful thinking? Who is a dream? Who is a delusion? Who is a summation answered at the end? Answered by others?

Why is an unanswerable? Why is a justification? Why is an excuse? Why is a luxurious afterthought?

Questions are answers?

Answers are questions?

???

Mr. Trump has this to say about Stella Immanuel:

• “Respected.”
• “Spectacular.”
• “Very impressive.”
• “Important voice.”

Stella Immanuel has this to say:

• “You don’t need masks. There is a cure.”
• “You don’t need people to be locked down.”
• “I treat patients with covid-19 and Hydroxychloroquine with zinc works. They get better in 24 hours.”
• On witches and demons – “They turn into a woman and then they sleep with the man and collect his sperm… then they turn into the man and they sleep with a woman and deposit the sperm and reproduce more of themselves.”
• “McDonald’s and Pokémon promote witchcraft.”
• “Alien DNA is used in medical treatments.”
• “Half-human ‘reptilians’ work in the government.”

So the question becomes, what do you have to say about Mr. Trump?

On the cusp of Forty Years. I suppose the moment that marks an end thus a beginning, the twinkling, poised on that fateful ledge, the staccato tap, dancing into darkness, the heartbeat, sliced by that razor edge, is indeed momentous. But then, so too can be the next moment; and the next moment; and the next; and on, and on, and on.

Though the consequence of forty years as measured against one human lifetime is an expanse, that expanse of forty years as measured against the span of our Universe is barely a cusp.

I am but one human lifetime; so forty years is of consequence, and the cusp is momentous. The greater the expanse, the more momentous the cusp.

I have lived more than I will live. I am actively hopeful that my children will live more than they have lived. I am actively hopeful that Humanity will survive to become more of an expanse than a cusp.

I believe the inescapable dichotomy that is Life, is best expressed in one's acts. Words alone feel superficial. Words alone lack weight. Not because words have no value, but because words alone have no audience. Words are dots, to be connected.

Ineffable. One definition reads: “incapable of being expressed or described in words.” Is that Death? Isn't that Death? Another definition reads: “not to be spoken because of its sacredness.” Is that Life? Isn't that Life?

There is disagreement.

One is one; or one is the other.

For many, sacredness implies a divine or blessed lack of comprehension; divine in the unspoken promise of answers beyond this Life, and a lack of comprehension born of the inescapable dichotomy that is Life.

For me, sacredness is in the tangible act of creation; in this Life. Without an act of creation, there is no truth. For me, my search for truth, for purpose, for wisdom, for happiness is only possible through personal acts of creation. Life allows one, even encourages one, to create.

Thoughts lead to words. Some stop there. Thoughts to words, will never suffice. To move beyond… Thoughts lead to words lead to thoughts lead to acts. Though words alone lack weight, they are a necessary part of the equation, encouraging depth and complexity and associations and further acts of creation.

Without words, one cannot acknowledge a cusp or an expanse. Without words, one cannot consider sacredness. And though we may disagree on the lineage or ascent of sacredness, I believe there is no argument that forty years in a Lifetime is of consequence and that the cusp is momentous.

So, for me, here, on the cusp of forty years, I feel an ineffable expansive moment of sacredness.