hopelesshappiness.com

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.

Omphalos. I discovered a word today. Omphalos: and from that, this; the central fact.

First I must determine if I believe Humanity is the central fact of the Universe. Is our species the omphalos?

And from this, I am compelled to ask, am I the central fact of Humanity? Am I the omphalos?

In some sense, to consider myself the omphalos is unavoidable. Depending upon my bias or persuasion, I can only influence the expansiveness of this consideration.

This brings me to purpose. If purpose is “the reason for which something exists” and if Humanity is the omphalos and/or if I am the omphalos, then is it consistent and reasonable that my purpose becomes my existence? Do all other considerations such as goodness and contribution and compassion and productivity and justice and patience and creativity fall by the wayside? One may believe that they exhibit these characteristics, but if these characteristics are secondary to the central fact of one’s existence, how can they be truly judged? Saying this, one might misunderstand and be inclined to argue that “my” characteristics can only be judged by me, but that is the question; how can my judgement not be influenced favorably by my belief that I am the omphalos? How can our judgement not be influenced favorably by our belief that we are the omphalos? So even if I want to believe that I am good and compassionate and productive and just, this belief in my character cannot and will never supersede the central fact of my existence. Extending this thought, if I want to believe that my purpose is altruistic, for example to serve my family or my nation or my constituency or my fellow man or my God, I am distracting myself from my true purpose which is to justify my existence.

So, what if purpose is “the reason for which something exists” and I claim to believe that the act of creation (instead of that which has been created) is the omphalos. First, I must acknowledge the unavoidability of the fact of my centrality and recognize my Humanity in order to realistically limit the expansiveness of my existence. Once I have mechanisms in place to keep me in my place, I must acknowledge and actively recognize that goodness and contribution and compassion and productivity and justice and patience and creativity come from, (like me and like Humanity), creation, and I must work to create, and I must understand that my character comes from these acts of creation and cannot and will never reside in the results. Extending this thought, it is okay to begin with an end in mind, (i.e. goodness, contribution, compassion, productivity, justice, patience, creativity or …whatever), but I must find my purpose within each act of creation; I must expend more energy and effort on the act, and not focus solely on the result – and this greater focus on the act must remain consistent before the act, during the act, and after creation. I will learn more by examining my actions, than I will ever learn from partaking of the fruits of my labor. To define myself according to the results, (merely perceived or actual), is to believe that I am the omphalos.

This brings me to truth. If truth is “actuality or actual existence” and if my purpose is always in some sense existence, then in some sense, (perhaps a greater sense?), purpose is always truth. And, if I work to find purpose in the act of creation and not in the result, and if I successfully limit the expansiveness of my existence, then truth and purpose (at least in some sense) become verbs.

To review: I see four possibilities for finding purpose. To consider them I will choose Goodness as an example of a (possible) commonly stated overarching purpose.

1. I can state that my purpose is to do good, and I can endeavor to maintain a semblance of (unplanned and/or spontaneous) public consistency, and from this I can believe my words equal my objective. I could stop here and find purpose in my proclamation and in my intention.
2. But if I examine that proclamation and the inconsistency of my consistency, I cannot stop. I will understand that I am saying I must act to create potential for good. (There may be instances or unforeseen dynamics in which my actions do not result in goodness, and if this happens frequently, others may question my character; but if I mitigate or correct and learn from my mistakes, this evolution may actually strengthen my character.) And by acting to create potential for good, I am saying that the creation of potential naturally replaces intention because it extends it by acting upon it, and, because the act of creation comes first, it supersedes the resulting circumstance, thus becoming purpose. I could stop here and find purpose in the act of creation.
3. But when I am the omphalos, I will not stop. I will continue by considering the significance of my existence in bringing about any resulting goodness, and suddenly, because I came first, my existence supersedes any act and becomes purpose. I could stop here and find purpose in my existence.
4. But if I believe there is a greater central fact, (be it Humanity or Nature or my God or another Universal), I will not stop. I will continue in this way back and back and back to the first creation, (whether I believe that to be Civilization or the Big Bang or God or a Stack of Turtles or …whatever), and because that First Miracle of Creation came first, it supersedes all else and becomes The Ultimate Purpose. This is disconcerting (for me) because if Purpose was fulfilled at that moment, where / how / why do I seek and/or find purpose. I could stop here, at this point in this scenario, and to avoid overwhelming feelings of futility, I could find purpose in the promise of an afterlife, or a legacy, or fame, or infamy or sometimes simply no hard feelings.

I am better to choose #2 because creation precedes, thus supersedes, existence. Without an act of creation there is no truth.

I cannot deny or ignore the centrality (i.e. distraction) of existence, and I am not disputing an Unmoved Mover or the validity of (in some way) being remembered. But I believe I personally will come closer to the truth of purpose by working (on my small scale) to emulate that first miracle of creation.

This leads me to a new thought consistent with an act of creation as omphalos. I frequently remark that Truth is an unattainable ideal. Perhaps I am actually referring to the truth of purpose because purpose will always be diluted by my existence. Because I cannot remove myself from the centrality of my self, I will never experience the purity of creation. My acts of creation will always be tied to their results and to my existence. The best I can do is to continue to find purpose in the act of creation, influence the expansiveness of my existence, and constantly remind myself that the act of creation (not that which has been created) is the omphalos.

Alternatively, those who find purpose in their existence will believe they have found a less diluted or (even) a pure truth in their existence and in the existence of other nouns, most especially those nouns they may attribute to their existence.

Essentially, to find purpose in an act of creation is to prompt or inspire continuous acts of creation, thus driving and/or urging one forward. Whereas, to find purpose in existence is to stop to admire successes and to justify failures, thus impeding productivity, contribution and progress.

I do believe that the act of creation is the omphalos and to find purpose in an act of creation is to come closer to truth (or Truth) than any other path to purpose. I can look at my 463 successive weeks of posting written thought as evidence that supports my belief. In these acts of creation, I have prompted and inspired more acts of creation, and in so doing, I have limited my opportunities to stop and admire, and, (due to lack of readership), I have not been tempted to justify my thought to others. Yes; I constantly assess and judge my thoughts and actions, and my thoughts do influence my reactions to others and guide my side of serious conversation, which all goes to character, but more importantly, this habitual creation translates to personal learning and growth enabling potential for progress. Yet, I understand as well that by presenting this evidence, I am also presenting evidence that I do consider myself the omphalos and to do so is unavoidable. I remain both yin and yang.