hopelesshappiness.com

I am lacking some fundamental aspect of being; an incompleteness that suppresses appreciation for individual human interaction. This deficiency does not lessen the value I perceive in the individual. I have said many times, and I very strongly believe, that each individual is every bit as necessary as each and every other individual. I believe this lack of appreciation, (or shortcoming as some would see it), is more a reflection of (what I perceive as) the speciousness of most individual human interaction.

To express appreciation for another individual as a connected part of the whole is okay. But to gush over an individual or small group of individuals and not understand their specific individual contribution(s) is not okay. I see anything beyond “Thank you for being here, for being you, and for being part of the whole (or team)” as gushing. Phrases such as “everything you do” and “we couldn’t do it without you” are unnecessary and, (especially if the gusher does not understand the specific individual contribution), manipulative; and thereby, specious.

Like every functioning human I have known, I have a deeply-rooted instinctive desire to be understood. Yet this desire in me, does not come out as an equivalent desire to seek human interaction. I suppose this is partially because when human interaction seeks and finds me, I am too trusting; then I am let down, and disappointed; and then I am angry. Outside of human interaction, this anger maintains and keeps me outside of human interaction. In the interactive moment, I am a sponge soaking up all the understanding, only to become disappointed in the next moment.

So what am I lacking?

Is there a limiting mechanism that aids most individuals in tempering trust? Or perhaps another that tapers anger? Or one that compacts and discards disappointment? Now the question becomes, if I could acquire one or all of these regulating devices, would I choose to do so? Or am I at an advantage with no limitations on my trust, disappointment and/or anger?

I want to believe that my lack of governance is an advantage that helps me to better understand reality; and I want to believe that if more individuals were too trusting, then severely disappointed, and in turn consistently but rationally angry, we, as a species, would exponentially increase our odds of survival, or, at the very least, discover, practice, and work to perfect an ever-evolving, enlightened, living justice. Even if that proverbial meteor, no matter our effort, one day wipes us out, wouldn't it be nice to take care of each other in the moments or days or decades or centuries we do have left?

There is a significant amount of wasteful individual human interaction. Many though would argue that common courtesy and a show of respect is necessary for productivity and progress. This is a valid argument. And I would also agree that gushing can and does encourage and motivate some; perhaps many. But those who are encouraged and motivated by gushing, are being guided (or manipulated) into actions that suit the agenda of the gusher. So as long as the gusher is good and just, I guess that's okay; but we should be skeptical; we should ask questions; and we should not lose sight of personal individual contributions that work more effectively toward goodness and justice.

So where then do we draw this line to halt the advance of individual human interaction? For me, it should definitely be laid down to turn back gushing, and in many instances, I would like to see it deter most unnecessary pleasantries and inanities unless they include applicable and/or compelling humor, or unless they are coming from a very significant other. I also believe that this line should be drawn according to the setting or circumstance. For example, on the job, minimal gushing is to be expected and as discussed above may be necessary; but excessive gushing is likely to be seen by most for what it is—manipulative—and may ultimately be counterproductive. And as also said, pleasantries from a significant other are, well, often very pleasant. And even the occasional gushing from a significant other may be welcome and productive.

Obviously there is no hard or fast rule for extent of individual human interaction. I believe my takeaway from this written thought is not about where to draw the line (especially when interacting with others), but more about encouraging less (human interaction) to accomplish more. Not only would we accomplish more because we would be trading pleasant inanity for the potential of productivity, but I also believe if we allow an unencumbered naïveté to trigger disappointment and in turn strategically stoke a slow-burning rational anger, we are more likely to see reality for what it is.

I don’t believe individual human interaction should be nonexistent; but I do believe that today, there is an inordinate quantity of unnecessary, ineffective, counterproductive, wasteful individual human interaction.

We can do better. We should do better.

I am tired. I am angry. I am realistic about my mortality. I am realistic about the future of humanity. I am most often alone in my thoughts. Yet I remain actively hopeful.

Is my continued effort in the face of reality merely a reflection of my will to survive? Is my anger-driven effort all for naught? Would I be better to pretend that humanity is the preeminent, chosen species, allowing us to dominate and ignore all else? And would I be better to pretend that because I grew up a middle-class white male, I can dominate and/or ignore lesser humans?

There are many who feel better about their self because they do not work to dominate, they simply pretend and ignore. But to pretend is to perpetuate ignorance, and to ignore is to allow continued oppression.

I cannot pretend. I cannot ignore. I have no desire to dominate, but I would very much like to influence. Perhaps this is what I need to consider this week: how to influence compassionately with urgency.

Urgency implies seriousness and demands insistence, which has a likelihood of being interpreted as a desire to dominate. When this urgency is coupled with my anger it increases that likelihood. Yet when I temper the anger to present more calmly and come across more compassionately, the necessary urgency either becomes diluted or disappears entirely. How do I convince others to NOT pretend and ignore when I am judged at one extreme (peacenik) or the other (fanatic)? There has to be a middle road. I have yet to find it.

At some point and at many points in my continued learning and growth I have believed that written thought could temper emotions (such as anger) and aid me in both the delivery of my message and the clarification and advancement of my own thought. And I believe it has; I believe my message is coherent in its written form, but there is no one there to receive it. This is at least partially because one outcome of these past years of weekly written thought, is the recognition and constant, continuous reminders that the more I know, the more I know I don’t know. And this certainty of uncertainty, coupled with the fact that I have no audience, nor the confidence to seek an audience, contributes to the compassionate urgency dichotomy dilemma I find myself in today.

I can no longer not express myself in this medium. I am afraid that if I were to stop, my anger would dominate my compassion, and my urgency would be overwhelmed by my sense of reality, resulting in the death of my active hope, leaving only an inanimate shell of passive belief. And I believe that this hope by itself, stagnant and stinking, is of no value. And though my current efforts toward learning and growth, (i.e. active hope), is also of no apparent value to others, it has become quite valuable to me.

Though I have in the past, written to convince myself to stay the path, as I said above, I don't believe that is this week's purpose. I am not questioning my habit; I am questioning how to repurpose my habit in order to influence compassionately with urgency. But I am uncertain; if this weekly-written-thought habit ever did gain an audience, would it be perceived as 1) quiet, sad desperation, 2) the frantic ravings of an urgent anger, 3) merely an effort to justify my existence, or 4) an actual, sincere effort to save the world?

But if rational, coherent written thought is not the solution I seek, is it the middle road I seek? And am I just somehow implementing it incorrectly? Or is there another nearby middle road that will encourage acknowledgement of and attention to reality? Expertise and science are great candidates for middle roads, but are frequently dry, boring, and difficult to understand, and do not instill the sense of urgency necessary for change and progress. Pretended expertise may instill a sense of urgency, but it is never a true middle road; it is a detour to a dead end. I have seen both small and large crises and catastrophes, such as a hurricane or job loss or a pandemic, serve as a short-term wake-up call forcing us to listen to actual science and expertise, but invariably, after a given period of time, we tend to return to normal or find a new normal and then continue to pretend and ignore. I do not know how to induce a constant, consistent necessity for urgency.

So, if contemplative, rational written thought (including science, expertise, and passionate pleas for urgency based on actual science and expertise) is a middle road, how do I encourage more travelers? This direction of thought tells me that perhaps I have been missing the point. Perhaps the middle road is not “my” written thought; perhaps the middle road is “all” serious, rational written thought. And perhaps my contribution to this effort is the passion and compassion with which I read and write and study and learn. Perhaps my written thought is merely a very narrow footpath on this much wider thruway; which makes sense as I am constantly seeking growth by frequently changing lanes, speeding up, slowing down, taking detours and exits, and learning the landscape. I believe traffic is heavier today than 30, 20 or even 10 years ago. And I don’t believe it is heavier only because of greater numbers of people. I believe as a species we find value in learning and growth, more so now than at any time in our history. We are being actively hopeful.

The process of written thought can temper emotion, yet, with practice, will also allow for emotional expression. Anger, urgency and compassion can each be given their due in an attentive and serious exercise of written thought. So, in this moment, if my ability to influence compassionately with urgency, is only my ability to influence myself compassionately with urgency, so be it; I am making a contribution to the necessary flow of learning and growth.

But that does not feel as if it is enough. It will take more than just me, (not pretending, not ignoring, learning and growing, skeptically confident and actively hopeful, within a massive entanglement of uncertainty), to save the world. And though I acknowledge that there are many other passionate learners out there, and I believe this number is growing, today this still does not feel as if it is enough.

I just realized…

I am not seeing the challenge for what it is. I am working here to find a way to influence compassionately with urgency, but how can one influence an inanimate shell of passive belief? To influence, I must first revive. How difficult is that? With rare exception, a zombie apocalypse can only end in the death of a sufficient number to enable control and/or containment. Either the humans are holed up in fortified outposts, or the zombies are killed or mostly killed with the remainder corralled in giant zombie playpens. Seldom is a protagonist able to cajole a zombie.

Wow!

Zombies are single-minded, and difficult to impossible to deter; though I believe they can be fairly easily distracted. Additionally, in most zombie apocalypse stories I am peripherally aware of, I don’t believe zombies die of natural causes. In recent years we have had varying, sporadic success distracting them and/or keeping them in their playpens; so, to me, (because I am not up to the challenge of killing zombies), to distract and to corral appears our only hope. And my job continues to be learning and growth and working to encourage and influence other humans who seek encouragement and influence, and/or those who have yet to be bitten and turned.

So, we give up on the zombies? I know of no way to revive them. I want to believe that deep, deep down in a darkest recess of a zombie soul, there is a desire to come back to life. And I want to believe that somewhere in the folds and crevices of the largely dormant matte gray that serves as the zombie brain, there is a spark of capability to come back to life. But I also believe that this desire and this spark can only be reached and fused by the zombie. Efforts (such as this paragraph) to reach this possibility from the outside, are much more likely to drown their desire, douse their spark, and fuel their single-mindedness.

So, we give up on the zombies.

To some, it may seem impertinent, rude, or even irreverent to turn this thought from a sincere desire for compassionate influence with urgency, to zombies, but by doing so it may help me to focus my effort. If I can identify those single-minded individuals I am unable to influence, and those power structures within which I am ignored, perhaps I can repurpose my habit to benefit those learners who seek encouragement and influence. Most days, and most weeks “those learners” are an exclusive coalition of one; my weekly-written-thought habit is of value only to me. But I continue to learn and grow, and in some small way, that is a contribution.

Recently I was asked to cite support for details for essential outcomes for micro-credentials for stacks for a construct that would enable more efficient learning and growth. This was a system being built to disencumber and elucidate. When I was first tasked with this challenge, I worked from the citation, of course reading the detail, and sometimes working up and out to the essential outcomes and surrounding details. During this time, I was most interested in a quantity of citations, resulting in (at times) a more superficial, cursory glance at the overall connective why. The results were adequate. Who reads the citations anyway? Right?

I struggled with this. If the foundation is cheap and not deep, it will eventually crumble and weaken the structure. And if I am expected to speak with some authority, I had better go beyond Google and Wikipedia and I had better attain some small degree of proficiency enabling greater confidence. And from the beginning, I did utilize scholarly, peer-reviewed journal articles from Google Scholar and ProQuest and Science Direct and ERIC and SAGE... So from the beginning I did speak with some authority, but my citations and descriptions seemed to me to be lacking… something.

More recently, working through 32 citations for 16 details for 5 essential outcomes for 1 particular micro-credential, I realized that it was not so much the work that was lacking; it was me. Though I was parroting authority, personally I was lacking the depth of understanding necessary for me to connect with… well… everything. I needed to work top down, not bottom up. So I began reading, and studying, information not always specifically relevant to the detail, but it ultimately led me to the detail, thus strengthening the foundation and stabilizing the entire construct. It also took longer.

…in some cases, much longer.

I was on a deadline.

Suddenly… (…it seemed suddenly), I was in trouble.

Looking back at the previous work, because I had cited authoritative authorities, my descriptive paragraphs were still solid; and useful; they served their purpose; but overall, some seemed more distant and detached and they did seem to lack some personal nuance and style; (not that there is a lot of nuance and style to be added to verbiage describing scholarly, peer-reviewed journal articles supporting details for essential outcomes for micro-credentials for stacks for a construct that would enable more efficient learning and growth).

So knowing the previous work was solid, and any little bit of personal nuance and style would likely go largely unnoticed anyway, I settled into a routine of reading (more briefly with fewer tangents) from the top down and allowing the authorities to speak, all the while ensuring that I maintained a basic understanding of the essential connective why.

I no longer felt like I was wading in the kiddie pool, but I also certainly was not 300 yards offshore, in the Gulf of Mexico, alone, with no life vest; at night; surrounded by storm clouds.

It was okay, this acknowledgement of time constraints; none of us really have all the time in the world. But still, I am a big fan of depth; and challenge; at night; surrounded by storm clouds; thinking about sharks.

I have always felt it important to go into a task seeking nothing less than perfection, and though I believe that in this human form perfection is unattainable, it is not this consideration that should rein me in, but rather the specific constraints of the specific task. I believe this is an important, perhaps vital distinction.

To seek perfection is a process that begins with an assessment of where a particular task or grouping of tasks is at in the current moment. An aspect of this assessment that comes about naturally is an identification of those process ingredients that are not working at all and those that are not working well. Throughout this consideration, reality frequently dictates a continuation of the old process and a simultaneous reworking of various tasks to ultimately create a new process. This layering of effort adds (sometimes exponentially) to the demands and requirements of the job. And this is why some come into a new task asking, “how have we always done it” and they stay on this traditional, well-worn path that has been cleared and beaten back by predecessors. Improvement requires increased effort. Perfection requires incremental, never-ending improvement. In my life I have never come across a perfect process.

I have immensely enjoyed the learning that has accompanied the citation / detail / essential outcome / micro-credential / stack / construct process, but I did, (to a degree), lose my way. In seeking perfection, I cannot lose sight of the destination. No matter the platitudes about the journey, there must be a destination, (i.e. accomplishment), in order to advance. Once that destination is reached, I have found that if the results are improved, from predecessors following the beaten path, or from expectations, one might be allowed to wander a bit more on the way to the next prescribed destination; especially in the early stages of the journey. I must listen completely to the task and its caretakers to gauge the potential for productive wandering and to not become lost. Though I have found that if I am not allowed some freedom to wander, I eventually tend to wander off.

In addition to constraints determined by other custodians, I must also be aware of constraints I place upon myself. To seek perfection, I must find a balance between confidence and doubt; I must acknowledge and recognize personal shortcomings; I must realistically temper my perceived strengths; I must counter emotional hemorrhage.

Each task will have constraints. And each individual's idea of perfection will differ from another’s and will change with changing circumstance. This week I made a cheesecake. For me it was near perfection. I have been playing with cheesecake recipes for months. I have found that only 1 egg and 1 tablespoon of flour to 3 blocks of cream cheese, 1 cup of sour cream, 1 cup of sugar and no flavor additions is very close to ideal; for me. Others may prefer 3 eggs and 3 tablespoons of flour, less cream cheese, and additional ingredients such as chocolate, or caramel, or peanut butter, or a fruit, or a combination. Though I can't imagine, others may prefer chocolate cake.

But even in this week's throes of cheesecake ecstasy, I still maintain that perfection is unattainable. I am confident that there remains potential to improve.

A best effort is only a best effort, so far.

The rich get richer, the poor get dead. If you are paying attention, you know this to be true. Of course throughout all of history, regardless of that day's standard for rich, this has always been true. Eventually though, the rich also get dead. So perhaps more simply put, the rich live longer; and suffer less. In the end, we are the same.

Many would disagree that in the end we are the same. And I cannot argue for or against any aspect of being in the end. I don't know the actuality of beyond. But I can argue that to live this life, on this planet, as if in the end we are all the same, creates a greater likelihood of more fair and more just resources, actions and outcomes on-this-planet. And I can argue that those who believe their privilege in this life will carry them to privilege beyond this life, regardless of if they are right or wrong, are not giving this life its due.

To sit and wait for justice, believing my confidence will prove me right and others wrong, is objectively risky. I am human and I am wrong on a daily, sometimes hourly (or more) basis. I am simultaneously privileged and cursed with this life on this planet; perhaps I should focus on this life on this planet, because if I do not, and if I am wrong within my confident privilege, I may be surprised at the end.

Because I have wealth and power, or some other form of privilege real or imagined, in my mind does not logically equate to an assurance of any kind. To consider a possibility beyond this actuality has become an entanglement of our nature; as has the concept of us and them. And I argue that this deadly combination will continue to create injustice and do harm. I believe it is more logical to work as one toward justice, goodness and survival. It makes sense to me that if there is a judgement day beyond this life on this planet, I will be judged on resources I have provided, actions I have taken, and outcomes I have influenced, here, on-this-planet. I refuse to believe that I will be judged on my wealth, power and/or any real or imagined privilege.

Yet so many with wealth and power expend so much effort justifying their privilege, reassuring their ego and maintaining status quo, that progress toward justice, goodness and survival is much slower and more arduous than it need be. Again, those with wealth and power are not giving this life its due.

Again, to live this life, on this planet, as if in the end we are all the same, creates a greater likelihood of more fair and more just resources, actions and outcomes, on-this-planet.

And again, regardless of desire or belief, this life on this planet is what matters most.

I can do this life justice only by believing that in the end, we are all the same

As the curve flattens, our president is working very hard to spout enough contradiction so he may blame others for what goes wrong and take credit for what goes right. The saddest part of this is that there are a significant number of people who will allow him to get away with this, and many of those will applaud him for it, and many of those will believe him. I wish I had a better handle on the actual numbers. Are most of half of us in this regard, truly ignorant? Or is it one-third (each) of half of us that are equally a) simply choosing the lesser of evils based on entrenched bias, b) calculating, mean and stupid, and c) ignorant. I could make a case that in this specific instance, with this specific president, (a) and (c) are the same thing. And of those I personally know who are supporters, I want to give benefit of the doubt and believe they are in group A. One could also argue that the other half of us can be categorized in the same way. But I believe most individuals in a given half would re-characterize their groupings as a) realistic, b) winners, c) loyal followers. Look closely and it is obvious that the (a)’s, (b)'s and (c)’s are synonymous; merely an interpretive perspective. But in the arena of politics, (most especially national politics), we must choose one half or the other; that is reality. As a voter, I have only two choices. Yet I believe in most endeavors there are finer gradations, transcending halves and groupings, moving from objective expertise through the ego to simple ignorance. The (a), (b), (c) groupings above begin in the ego and move to ignorance. I should reach beyond ego and ignorance, seeking objective expertise, yet understand that I will always be far more ignorant than knowledgeable and there is no shame in not knowing. Stupidity, on the other hand, is a choice, and I see most (if not all) politicians and political activists in group B, working to convince voters that there are only two choices on any given issue. It is much easier to pretend to have the answer when the question is simplified to either/or. In reality, questions and answers are much more complex with gradations, implications and unforeseen considerations. To change and improve reality, we must acknowledge ignorance, avoid stupidity, and we must not be ignorant of reality. Today, those in power are completely ignorant of most realities.

Those in power today, will not be in power tomorrow; (tomorrow being some unknown future date). But when tomorrow comes, will we have learned the lessons of today? Or will we have simply moved to a slightly lesser evil and continue to frame reality as either/or. Reality today is complex. Our government should somehow reflect that complexity. Not in additional divisive, political agencies and regulations, (complexity does not equal bureaucratic complications), but in the utilization of more diverse and equitable objective expertise. This must start with the voter. If enough of us acknowledge our own ignorance, avoid stupidity (i.e. politics), and recognize objective expertise, perhaps we can begin to vote accordingly and somehow save the world. I have said all this before, and my headache is only getting worse; (the brick wall is a harsh and cruel inamorata).

The reality of a moment is different from the reality of a decade which is different from the reality of a lifetime which is different from the reality of my grandchildren which is different from the reality of human existence.

The reality of the moment often appears to present a simple either/or.

When I consider a one-year, five-year or ten-year plan, the moment is slowed, I become more thoughtful, perhaps more calculating, perhaps more selfish, I am faced with more choices, and this reality of the span forces me to consider consequence.

When I consider my lifetime, I think about right and wrong, good and bad, I think about my legacy, and I may become fearful, or sad and regretful, or curmudgeonly, or I may change my ways, I may become more pleasant, outgoing, cheerful, kind, or I may become defensive and burrow into a delusion, but regardless, this reality of my lifetime forces me to become serious, even if it is only in that final breath.

When I consider my grandchildren and their grandchildren, I see uncertainty and I feel empathy and sorrow, and I see the possibility and I am hopeful and cautiously confident that they will find their way, that we and/or they will have learned lessons from this moment, that it is not too late, and in this reality of the near future beyond me, my hope becomes active.

When I consider all human existence, I see grandeur and futility, I see learning and greed and ego, I see the ebb and flow of progress and retreat and inertia, I see a struggle to survive and coexist and dominate and understand, I see the simultaneous necessity and insignificance of me, I imagine the beginning and I imagine both an end and a continuation; in this reality of human existence, I am torn between why and why not.

In a given moment, each individual must decide which of these parallel realities to call upon for strength and guidance. I would argue that the moment is all fluff and bluster, and the span can be a trap set by the ego that can be tempered by the lifetime, and the lifetime alone may bring on fear and delusion masquerading as kind and good, and the near future is likely ineffective without some consideration of span and perhaps a spoonful of lifetime, and to consider all human existence is a valuable solitary pursuit.

I began this thought hoping to better understand the reality of our president, and those who support him and those who encourage him and those who believe him; and I believe I do have a better understanding. In politics, which is defined as any struggle for power, reality does not move beyond ego, our president resides in the moment, some of the lesser evils consider the span, and any forays into the lifetime are superficial, cursory excursions mostly in and around the shadowy extremities. I began this thought thinking that politics is a reality unto itself, but perhaps politics is better characterized as (at its worst) the reality of the moment or (at its best) the reality of a span. To consider beyond these granularities, power is afraid would create a potential in which it may lose its edge. To consider beyond these granularities is not politics, it is serious, egoless, active hope. To consider beyond these granularities is necessary for survival.