hopelesshappiness.com

Eternity: “infinite (unlimited or unmeasurable) time; duration without beginning or end.”

Is eternity important? Or is it merely a talking point? A distraction to make us feel better about all things temporal. An unprovable feature of our belief that I am important and we are the reason. I try to wrap my head around ‘eternity’ and come away blown away. How is it possible? How can something be both endless and beginningless? And if there is no beginning or end, am I moving outward or inward? Expanding or contracting? Exploding or imploding? Is it possible to not move at all? Are there still three dimensions? Two? Five? Is it possible to have zero dimensions? Is it still tangible? Can I touch it? Can it touch me? Do I lose consciousness? Am I pure ego? Or a mental construct? Or just feeling? Or extreme emotion? Will I discover the spirit? The soul? Is there a difference between the two? Will I find that there is no spirit? Or there is no soul? Or perhaps we are all one? And if I find I am not an individual spirit or soul, will I comprehend what I have unfound? Blown away.

Endless.

Beginningless.

Insubstantial?

Nothingness?

Meaningless?

I believe this is why some, (perhaps many), who ponder eternity, see it as a continuation; perhaps a giant banquet table in a giant banquet hall filled with past and present family and friends and acquaintances all playing a giant game of remember when; or simply loved ones waiting on the other shore; or all those virgins. I am far, far away from expertise, but in my limited knowledge I don't believe that these imaginings are consistent with the definition, scriptural depictions or scholarly interpretations of eternity. My desire for eternity though is attached to this temporal existence so I am naturally inclined to ascribe features of this existence to a next. It takes effort to seriously consider the possibilities contained in all the questions above.

I live a life in which I am hard pressed to find this moment. Each moment slips by into the past as it anticipates the future moment already coming. St. Augustine observed “if the present were always present and did not go by into the past, it would not be time at all, but eternity.” That observation (to me) is pretty brilliant. In this context of an ever-present present, to reconcile my desire for eternity with my place here, now, (which is a different place in each here and in each now), becomes exponentially difficult. What do I wish for in an eternity where there is no anticipation? No recall? I will be there. And only there. One here. One now. One place. For all eternity. If I have a choice, I can understand no choice but to be within my self in that place. In my idea of my body? In my heart? In my mind? In my spirit? In my soul? In all and everything at once? If there is no recall, and no anticipation, perhaps this is peace. Is this the Buddhist aspiration? Is peace synonymous with meaninglessness? If not, how is it different? If so, is this okay?

Blown away.

To have faith in a concept of eternity consistent with this temporal existence is necessary for some. I think I get it and I don't want to take that away unless that faith interferes with Goodness, impedes progress or overtly contributes to divisiveness in this temporal existence. If one wants to believe eternity will include connection with this temporal existence, and especially if one believes there is a judgement to be faced, then it feels logical that in this existence one should strive to do Good and advance Humanity, (save Humanity), by working together. Yet here we are.

I had a documented beginning. I personally recall events from nearly sixty years ago that have grounded me in that beginning. One day I will die. My beginning. My end. Temporal. As this moment slips into the past and I anticipate the next moment, I allow eternity to slip through my fingers. Even if I stretch a moment with stillness and perceived peace, I am only privileged with a narrow, tiny glimpse of one of an infinite number of possibilities. Movement continues all around me. Regardless of efforts toward stillness and peace, I cannot help but to continue as well. In this Life, to know eternity is not possible. In this temporal existence, I am not just a spirit, or a soul, or a heart or mind or body. In this temporal existence, I am all of these things or I am none of these things. In this temporal existence, I am everything and I am nothing. In this temporal existence, I am flow.

Compromise: “to make vulnerable to danger, suspicion, scandal, etc.; jeopardize.” Published synonyms include: “weaken, discredit; expose.”

How much do I compromise my personal autonomy with communal collaboration? I value my personal autonomy and I believe each one of us should protect and preserve it as much as is functionally possible. Yet even the smallest amount of exposure will have some influence on output; often before the fact, but if not before the fact, then after the fact in the form of feedback or judgement, critical or favorable, which in turn may (consciously or subconsciously) influence future personal output. In this sense, communal collaboration is restrictive. Yet communal collaboration, interdependence, synergy is necessary for significant communal progress. So, perhaps the question is not only how much, but also when? Perhaps I must first work to mitigate influence, and then determine opportunity and share, and then assess the feedback and reactions, and then again work to mitigate influence. So, in this circular process, I must share; or, I can circumvent the process and choose to suppress. As I examine this thought, I realize that at different levels for different circumstance, I have been consistently choosing to suppress.

There are different levels of self-suppression:

1. Quiescent Proximity – I will get as close to comfort as I am allowed, hunker down, and stay there until I am noticed and forced to move.
2. Angry Indignation – I am aware. I have a sense of reality. I recognize that of the entirety who practice quiescent proximity, a select few are allowed to hoard comfort and protect their places closest to that center. The majority continue to be pushed further and further away, but because I am angry and indignant, if I speak up I am condescended to, (by those in power, close to the center), and made to feel like a small child; or an idiot. So I choose to stay quiet. This characteristic, (angry indignation), in a large group perpetuates divisiveness which in turn impedes progress.
3. Uncertainty – I am aware. I have a sense of reality. I am an active learner seeking answers, but because I am not an expert in a given area, I am hesitant to verbalize thoughts or opinions. I am certain that wealth could be shared and those further and further away from comfort could be moved closer. I am fairly certain that for most, angry indignation could be used as a springboard to uncertainty and from there to an agreement on the necessity of expertise and from there to an ability to differentiate between the expert and the politician and from there to perhaps some actual significant communal progress. But I am uncertain how to pull the very large majority of us from quiescent proximity. So I choose to stay quiet. This characteristic, (uncertainty), in a large group perpetuates status quo which in turn impedes progress.

I don't have the answers, so I shut up. By their nature, a politician, (i.e. one who struggles for power), claims to have the answers and cannot shut up. Looking at results and evidence, politicians don’t have the answers. An administrator, (i.e. one who delivers positive results despite hardship or difficulty), accepts that they do not have the answers and looks for and to those (many) individuals who may each have a specific answer for a specific question. An administrator accepts that change is necessary and not comfortable. An administrator understands that angry indignation is counterproductive. An administrator is an active learner seeking answers. An administrator understands that politicians are counterproductive. Though still uncertain, an administrator finds a way to express their self through organization driving progress.

It is sad that today, to have a chance to be an administrator one must first overcome politics. Yet to overcome politics requires one to become a politician. And to become a politician greatly reduces the likelihood of effective administration. Thus, the aforementioned results and evidence; not only in our ‘hallowed’ halls of government, but everywhere there is a bad or ineffective or mediocre boss.

So perhaps the ultimate question is not how much or when, but how do I compromise my personal autonomy in the context of communal collaboration? And perhaps the answer is, administratively. Exposure is bound to happen. And with exposure comes vulnerability. And with vulnerability comes a fear of being hurt. And with this fear comes a reluctance. And if I am reluctant, I will likely remain quiet, but I can still accept that change is necessary and not comfortable. And I can still understand that angry indignation is counterproductive. And I can still be an active learner seeking answers. And I can still understand that politicians are counterproductive. And I can still seek and perhaps on occasion find a way to express my self through organization driving progress. And perhaps organization will have more success mitigating influence and protecting personal autonomy than do angry indignation or quiescent proximity. And perhaps instead of seeking opportunity to determine when, I should simply share; administratively. And if there is no immediate feedback or reaction, I must believe that ultimately there will be; because I am exposed. So I must continue to work administratively in order to mitigate influence, preserve personal autonomy, maintain integrity, and continue cycling active hope.

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?

???