hopelesshappiness.com

I crave order. Order requires control. Control requires power. My interpretation of my power to control and insinuate order will lead to an emotional response: fear or joy, anger or sadness, serenity or pensiveness, or an alternating or simultaneous combination thereof. I am Human. I will feel emotion. That emotion will further impact my interpretation.

A perceived lack of power leading to a perceived lack of control leading to a perceived lack of order may ultimately move me to apathy and/or quiescence.

I see four areas in which I work to apply this power / control / order concatenation:

1. My Self.
2. Other Individuals around me.
3. My Physical Surroundings.
4. My (perceived and actual) Circumstance.

I crave order because I want to make sense of things. I want to make sense of things because I crave order. I'm not sure there is a better explanation. As I continue this Life, more and more things though make less and less sense. Is this a reflection of current circumstance? Or am I just coming around to understanding reality? Despite today's social and political divisiveness, I believe I am coming around (and around and around and around and around again) to an ever-evolving understanding of how things really are; realizing that I will never completely know how things really are. But I believe it is better to progress toward an understanding by continuing around and around, than it is to stand in the way shouting (and believing) that I have it all figured out.

I see three ways in which I work to make sense of things. They are…

1. Tradition and Fervor,
2. Reason and Reform,
3. Revolution and Radical Change,

…posted along a single spectrum.

Change is inevitable.

When I call on tradition, I am appealing to emotion to change things back to the way they were. I cannot appeal to (or apply) reason; if I do I might find that the good old days were not so good. So I appeal to emotion to hearken back to better times (that were not) which essentially leaves our wheels spinning and leaves us stuck in the status quo. If I am joyful in my power / control / order efforts, I call on tradition. If I am afraid, I call on tradition.

Change is inevitable.

When I call on reason, I am working to tweak and fine tune in order to incrementally improve the process, knowing we will never reach Perfection. It is difficult to maintain this baby-step pace, especially when strong emotions come into play. I am Human. I will feel emotion. I am most inclined to call on reason when I am calm and/or pensive.

Change is inevitable.

When I call for revolution, I am demanding immediate and radical change, believing Perfection is just around the corner. And if upon rounding that corner, Perfection is disappearing around the next corner, I am going to insist that we continue the chase. If I am angry within my power / control / order efforts, I call for revolution. If I am feeling a great sadness, (heartache, gloom, despair), I call for revolution.

If I were to embrace the fact that change is inevitable, and disregard strong emotions, and somehow quell or at least lessen my craving for order, then perhaps I could be happy with incremental improvement. Tradition and fervor merely keep us running in place. Revolution and radical change merely create a new circumstance that will still necessitate change in order to progress. As a whole, the push and pull between these two ends (tradition and revolution) appears to allow for and perhaps even encourage reason and reform; (i.e. incremental improvement).

I am Human. I will feel emotion. And at times, I will find it difficult to disregard strong emotion. So, at times I will feel it necessary to call on tradition, or revolution. And who is to say that this periodic upheaval is not helpful in moving me incrementally forward. But as a long-term solution, I do not believe that strong emotion and constant upheaval is an answer.

In this moment, my ever-evolving understanding has come around to believe that Reason and Reform from a pensive serenity will carry me further, faster than will tradition and/or revolution. And when I forget myself in fear or joy or anger or sadness, I am confident that I will recognize the perfidious recklessness of extremes and come back to reason and reform. And if I do not, the opposite extreme will forcibly pull me back.

Working hard is hard work; not only in the work itself, but also in the ethic required to sustain the effort. From dictionary.com, an ethic is “an intricate or complicated association or assemblage of related moral precepts held or rules of conduct followed by an individual.” More simply put…

…No, it cannot be more simply put. By its nature and by its definition a work ethic is complex. To put it more simply would characterize the lack of a work ethic.

Yet it is Human nature to simplify. I am going to fight that urge and spend the next however many words it takes, (or more likely until I run headlong into my deadline), to contemplate the complexities of a work ethic. I want to consider how / when / where / why work becomes valuable. I want to better understand the relationship between quantity of work and quality of work and if quantity alone can be valuable. I want to figure out a way, (perhaps a formula?), to objectively quantify work. I want to account for differences in capabilities so I am reminded that those with a little more talent or intelligence should not be given undue credit for hard work, and those who are in over their heads should not be given undue blame for slacking; (I believe every one of us belong to both groups in varying circumstance). I want to compare physical and mental labor. I want to better understand how a work ethic translates to play. I want to contrast the role of emotion and the role of reason in work.

I have defined ethic. Also from dictionary.com, the most basic definition for work is “exertion or effort directed to produce or accomplish something.” According to this definition, even an effort to avoid work, is work. And busy work is work. In these instances we are accomplishing and/or producing something. What we have accomplished or produced may be of no value in terms of results, but then again this “no value” relatively speaking, may be of greater value than the potentially flawed results of a sincere effort. So does this mean that to measure value we must account for an infinite array of alternative possibilities? And then when considering the actual results, how do we account for varying subjective judgements? And then how do we account for the potential or actuality of extended or ultimate results? This accounting is difficult knowing that one individual's scientific breakthrough with sincere and good intentions, may ultimately be another individual's atomic bomb. Perhaps some individuals, (perhaps many individuals), are more suited for busy work. Which appears to mean that quantity has value. And we are perhaps better to use the basic definition of work and consider only the character-building value therein; regardless of perceived quality? I don't know. Results seem important and there are some efforts and ethics that are of obvious quality. Sincere effort also seems important; but Hitler's effort was sincere. So do results mitigate sincerity?

Based on this thought so far, the value of work is measured by

1. Quantity, (regardless of sincerity);
2. Sincerity of effort, (and its structured complexity);
3. Quality of Work; (judged subjectively);
4. Quality of Results, (relative to alternative possibilities and also judged subjectively);
5. Quality of Results, (both immediate and ultimate).

But, I think the value, (or perhaps more accurately, the strength) of one's work ethic is measured only by

1. Quantity, (regardless of sincerity); and
2. Sincerity of effort, (and its structured complexity).

So to review, a work ethic then would be “an intricate or complicated association or assemblage of related moral precepts held or rules of conduct followed by an individual [in order to drive] exertion or effort [that is in turn] directed to produce or accomplish something.” Additionally, to clarify, based on this thought, Quantity and Sincerity can conceivably be mutually exclusive; (i.e. a hard worker who doesn’t care enough to think things through or a lazy person who is nonetheless sincere). Together Quantity and Sincerity establish the complexity of levels or layers required for the initial premise above that working hard is hard work. I believe one must first consider, establish, nurture and strengthen their work ethic as it will impact all effort, and if one stays true to that ethic then subjective judgements will naturally occur and adjustments can be made. I have also found that once a work ethic has been established, the nurturing may require some quantity of busy work.

So I think I better understand how work can become valuable, (1 thru 5 above), and I understand that its value is subject to subjectivity. I also believe that a work ethic can be strengthened and work can have value regardless of the where, but work can and will be directed, thus influenced, according to circumstance and surroundings. And at first the question of why work becomes valuable appears to be answered in much the same way as how work becomes valuable; and this is true, but I also believe the why pulls in the individual and their feelings and emotions. Without a feeling of satisfaction, many individuals will quit; and many do. So I believe why goes beyond the how in that it must be considered from the perspective of the producing individual, which I also believe is consistent with studies on workplace motivation.

This leaves the question of when work becomes valuable. I suppose the Quality of Work can be judged (subjectively) almost immediately, but as pointed out above it is much more difficult to measure the value of results until all ripples have disappeared. And I don’t know about you, but I am working to leave ripples long after my Wake. Because posthumous greatness is a thing, who is to say what is and what is not busy work? Additionally, measuring Quality of Work is made more difficult by individual capability. Of two individuals asked for the same or similar specific output, the one who produces what is judged as higher quality is not always the more sincere, and/or harder-working individual. Any measurement of quality can be and may very well be independent of one's work ethic.

So if I were going to apply a formula to measure value, for work I believe that would be:

(Quantity of Work) X (Sincerity of Effort) + or – (Quality of Work) + or – (Quality of Immediate Results) – (Missed Opportunities) + or – (Quality of Future Results).

And because Quality will always be a subjective measurement, and because the number of potential missed opportunities is potentially infinite, the actual value of work is impossible to quantify. The formula however, for the value or (more accurately) the strength of one's work ethic, I believe is more straightforward but can only be objectively quantified by the individual producer, because to defend one's product automatically cheapens and/or weakens it. This formula for work ethic would be:

((Quantity of Work) X (Sincerity of Effort)) to the power of (Sincerity of Effort).

I have just run headlong into my deadline without addressing physical vs. mental labor, the impact of one's work ethic on play, or the role of emotion and the role of reason in work. I will consider if these factors warrant more effort to carry forward into next week, or if that effort is more likely to result in inconsequential busy work.

Hmm…

Thoughtful, creative study and reflection in solitude and silence.

Thoughtful in that it is skeptical and uncertain and questioning and dissatisfied.

Creative in that it continuously digs deeper to expand outward and build upward.

Study and reflection always alternatively in tandem.

Solitude meaning alone. I have not so much learned to be alone as I have discovered that regardless of my surroundings I am by myself.

Silence meaning a quiet, open mind. The foundational drone of a crowded coffee shop or the traffic as I walk to work is more conducive to quieting and opening my mind than if I were at home with bills and dinner and a cluttered garage and a bag of chips and a nap and a TV all screaming at me for attention.

Thoughtful, creative study and reflection in solitude and silence.

Some would say the following is more important:
Structured, social order and growth within a harmonious consensus.

Structured in that powerful, often unmovable men and/or groups and/or ideas and/or governments manage and at times force the process.

Social in that peoples are thought to take precedence over individuals.

Order and growth because we are optimistically, (and sometimes wildly), overconfident in our ability to deliver widespread material well-being.

Harmonious meaning the powerful are in agreement.

Consensus meaning inconsequential minority dissent.

Structured, social order and growth within a harmonious consensus.

There are far too many unpredictable, unforeseeable consequences from the innumerable complexities of social interaction for any powerful anything to dictate order and/or consistently guide growth.

But I am seeing how powerful whatevers suppress individual thought by dividing peoples into their respective factions and insisting that your factional identity is your individual identity. And we go along because we are uncomfortable with solitude and silence.

A factional identity is potentially overbearing and cumbersome and it is slow to change; but a factional identity can also serve to balance and check power, both in other factions and within itself.

An individual identity requires constant reevaluation because it is uncertain, skeptical, questioning, and dissatisfied with the status quo; thus, an individual identity has difficulty asserting itself.

A factional identity properly absorbed by an individual can become a warm, cozy, comfortable hibernation from thoughtful effort.

An individual identity is to find oneself clinging to an expansive rock face, (that requires constant movement to find cracks and crevices as footholds and handholds), in search of a ledge; only to find that all the ledges are crumbling.

If an individual falls, they will frequently find a faction there to catch them.

Everyone falls, on occasion.

Having fallen, an individual comes to understand that they can also purposely let go in order to fall backwards into the waiting, protective arms of a faction. Once this is understood it becomes easier to let go; or jump.

As an individual clambering around on crumbling ledges you may on occasion force faction members below to look up and wonder what in the world you are doing up there.

Individual autonomy is difficult because it requires thoughtful, creative study and reflection in solitude and silence.

The promise of structured, social order and growth within a harmonious consensus is attractive because it requires little or no effort on the part of the individual.

But if we allow individual autonomy to drive order and growth instead of depending upon the powerful to provide order and growth, perhaps the additional complexity of innumerable decision makers would better adjust for the unpredictable, unforeseeable consequences that are often a result of oversimplified politics and bureaucracy.

First we must convince individuals that thoughtful, creative study and reflection in solitude and silence is beneficial; and necessary.

If only it were so simple. If only those day-to-day summary distractions we think are important, were that important. If only we really knew what we know. Who is to say what is best? It seems reasonable to think that uncertainty will lead to a deeper level of questioning, a more nuanced response, and a more fitting temporary solution that will continue to evolve as one continues to question. But instead, we have learned to move forward with confidence and declare a resolution often based on entrenched bias and emotional attachment; and sometimes on selfish interest. And then we defend that decision and become even more entrenched. Decisive action, no matter how arbitrary, is King. Skeptical questioning, no matter how thoughtful, is perceived as imperfect, ordinary, deficient, weak.

The cost of entrenched, emotional or selfish confidence is great. Circumstance today changes far too quickly for certainty. Today we are both blessed and cursed with more opportunity to reflect than what we have had in past decades and centuries. Instead of taking that time to glory in success, or to regret failure (which may lead to blaming others for failure), perhaps we should take that time to actually reflect, by questioning what we have learned, in order to more-rapidly advance and improve. Is a success really a success if it is not Perfection? Is a failure really a failure if we can learn from it to improve? Are there not an interminable number of small steps between me and Perfection? It is only when I choose to stop, (to celebrate or regret and/or blame), that a success becomes a success or a failure becomes a failure. But to stop is “to come to an end” and that (for me) is not only ominous but also the opposite of actively living my Life. In a sense, each success I celebrate and each failure I regret is a little death.

When I am clear-headed, I choose Life. But I am Human and not always clear-headed. Last night was one such circumstance. I floundered in regret and blame. I found failure. I died a little death.

This morning I came to work and received “Kudos” – (a workplace recognition system that “celebrates and rewards employees”). I was tempted to stop and glory in my success but I realized that I received Kudos for simply doing my job. And even if I had received Kudos for going above and beyond, to go above and beyond is still my job. To stop, to do a little touchdown dance or to flex my muscles, would have resulted in another little death. And even in the pause it gave, I died a tiny little death.

By nature, I am driven to survive. So why would I choose, and continue to choose, over and over and over again, an interminable number of little deaths instead of an interminable number of small steps.

Within each moment, I have a choice. To stand still? Or to move forward?

Because I am Human, I will on occasion choose to stand still. If I make a decision when I am standing still, that decision will come from emotion and bias, and maybe selfish interest, and may root me to my spot. If I make a decision as I am taking small steps forward, I will be forced to reevaluate as the landscape changes. I am better able to exude confidence when I am standing still. But I believe I am more likely to say what is best when I account for a changing landscape.

To take a stand for an entrenched belief is to stop for fear of failure. This fear is understandable (because an entrenched belief becomes inseparable from personal identity) but unreasonable (because it is not fear of failure, it is fear of inevitable change). If another (individual or group) attacks my entrenched belief, I feel like I am being attacked, and in this circumstance, I feel that to succeed I must stop and take a stand. And then, if I am rooted from my spot, I will perceive the changing landscape as my failure to control my surroundings. So again, within this perceived success / failure dynamic, each time I take a stand I die a little death.

It is difficult to acknowledge that the changing landscape should take precedence over my personal identity; but it is reasonable because the landscape will continue to be, (and continue to change), long after my personal identity is gone. This fact of “me” skews perspective. Success and failure is not personal and it is not measured in dollars or property or consumer goods or power or position or prestige. If it is anything, the dynamic of success and failure is an ongoing, intangible measure of the entirety of a Life lived to strive and survive for Perfection. In this sense, each one of us as individuals will fail. I would like to think that as a species we can continue to strive and survive, if not for an eternity, at least for a foreseeable future. Yet as a species we have spent our conversant existence believing we take precedence over the changing landscape. As an individual, I need to work to acknowledge the predominance of the landscape.

There is a difference between the landscape and society. I am a part of society and I am a part of the landscape; society is a part of the landscape; but this belonging does not take my efforts away from me nor does it justify a greater good for the sake of society at the expense of the individual; I remain an autonomous being beholden to the changing landscape (of which society is a part). It is worth repeating that as a species, as a society, we have spent our conversant existence believing we take precedence over the changing landscape. And from this thought it is not a very big leap for some to claim that society and the success of society takes precedence over the individual. The problem with this is that the flaws inherent in the success / failure dynamic apply to society as well as the individual. When we stop to measure and compare who has the bigger GDP, or to celebrate low unemployment, as a society, we die a little death. Just as with the individual, as a society we should reflect, learn, advance, improve. I don't see the cycles, the ebb, the flow stopping to celebrate a rising sun, or lament a destructive hurricane, or regret a swarming species upsetting a delicate balance. Effort spent on celebration or regret is Human effort. Effort spent on celebration or regret is wasted effort.

Reflect, learn, advance, improve...

…or die.

I do not want to rid us of the concept of wealth, but I do think it is necessary to drastically reduce the wealth gap. I believe we have to find a middle road between a poorly managed welfare state and unchecked capitalism. According to my understanding, a welfare state intends to drive growth but simultaneously creates a sense of entitlement. And unchecked capitalism intends to create wealth but simultaneously discourages effort. And though we can point at some efforts to check capitalism in order to control excessive wealth for the few, we are obviously not doing so in ways that will consistently benefit the many or uplift the downtrodden (which are fast becoming the same), or slow the widening of the wealth gap. In fact, this very month, entangled inroads were made when our government took food away from 700,000 Americans in need. Question: Why? Answer: To funnel more advantage to the wealthy and powerful few, and to continue to widen the wealth gap. We are a wealthy nation, yet we consistently appear to refuse to take care of our people.

We have to find a middle road, yet oddly enough it feels like our current path is moving towards not so much a middle road as it is keeping us in this convoluted entanglement of (occasional) growth, wealth (and an ever-increasing wealth gap), entitlement and quiescence. It feels like we have manufactured a conservative progressivism that cannot find an identity or a direction. I am not an expert and I may be misinterpreting some aspects of this dynamic, but these four factors

1. Growth
2. Wealth and its accompanying Wealth Gap
3. Entitlement and
4. Quiescence

certainly feel like they are (together) steering us deeper and deeper into an abyss of acrimonious ignorance.

Looking closely at the ever-increasing wealth gap, today it seems that growth within our unchecked capitalism is most frequently funneled right back to the wealthy; not necessarily or only because capitalism itself is unchecked, but partially because our bureaucracy is so incompetent and mostly because the wealthy have learned to take advantage of the aforementioned convoluted entanglement.

We have been warned.

In 1832 Andrew Jackson said,

“It is to be regretted that the rich and powerful too often bend the acts of government to their selfish purposes.”

In 1788, in Federalist No. 62, James Madison wrote,

“It will be of little avail to the people, that the laws are made by men of their own choice, if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood...
…Law is defined to be a rule of action; but how can that be a rule, which is little known, and less fixed?...
…Another effect of [this] public instability is the unreasonable advantage it gives to the sagacious, the enterprising, and the moneyed few over the industrious and uninformed mass of the people...
...This is a state of things in which it may be said with some truth that laws are made for the FEW, not for the MANY.”

And 200 years later, in his book “The Fatal Conceit: The Errors of Socialism” published in 1988, Friedrich Hayek (who won the Nobel Prize in Economics in 1974) wrote,

“The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design. To the naïve mind that can conceive of order only as the product of deliberate arrangement, it may seem absurd that in complex conditions order, and adaptation to the unknown, can be achieved more effectively by decentralizing decisions and that a division of authority will actually extend the possibility of overall order.”

Interestingly, Hayek, a contemporary, appears to give our leaders the benefit of the doubt by attributing their misdeeds to naïveté, whereas Jackson and Madison appear to foresee selfish manipulation. Either way, if most of us were able to see this for more than 100 years, and some of us were able to see this for 200 years, how is it that Progressives have not been able to see it since early in the 20th century, and neither Progressives or (so-called) Conservatives can see it today?

In this nation we have two parties from which to choose our leaders. The fact of only two parties is sad in and of itself, but it is a different problem from our most pressing challenge. Today our biggest problem is the similarity between the current versions of the two parties. Today our choices are 1) big government where the rich selfishly manipulate the system to get richer, or 2) big condescending, pretentious government where the individual loses autonomy and rights; vanilla or vanilla bean. So in actuality, in today's convoluted entanglement, this is not an either/or but instead a less/more choice.

We have big government and it looks nigh on impossible for us to extricate ourselves from this convoluted entanglement of growth, wealth, entitlement and quiescence that is endorsed and perpetuated by the inner entanglement of the rich and the powerful who have infiltrated and learned to bend and shape our government to their will.

So to find a truly effective middle road, we must first disentangle ourselves as individuals from big government. Big government is not the answer. As suggested by Friedrich Hayek, we must reduce government by decentralizing decisions, but to do this, we as individuals must somehow separate our self from entitlement and from quiescence. We must pay attention to our limited choices, listening carefully to what our factions are espousing and (at this sad moment of political reality) we must choose the lesser of the two evils. In this sad moment we will be unable to extricate ourselves from big government, so I believe we must choose the least divisive evil; we must choose the faction and the voice that will at least acknowledge the individual, no matter how misguided their efforts at granting individual autonomy.

By nature, I am conservative. Horrified by the direction and nature of conservatism in recent years, I have recently gone so far as to identify as a social democrat. Even more recently though, I have realized that this is inaccurate. By nature I have always been conservative, but with thoughtful consideration I now see that as a nation this perspective is no longer a choice. So I am forced to choose less divisiveness and live with more government, because I believe that will allow the individual a little more opportunity to disentangle him or herself from the entitlement and quiescence, which I believe is the first step toward individual autonomy.

To disentangle ourselves as a nation, we must first do so as individuals. And to do so as an individual, I must recognize and work to understand the balanced necessity of each and every individual; and I will never be able to do this as long as I am finding fault and blaming and accusing and pretending and going along for the ride down into our self-made abyss of acrimonious ignorance.

The middle road begins with the individual; and we as individuals must find our way before the middle completely disappears.