hopelesshappiness.com

Twas the week before Christmas, when all through our nation

Impeachment was stirring, Presidential ablation

Amendments were hung by their necks with great care,

In hopes that our rights would soon run out of air;

High justice was nestled all snug in its branch,

While the other two Powers, enjoyed their carte blanche;

With Congress in its mischief, and Trump in his cap,

The judges and Senate were sharing a nap,

When up in my head there arose such a clatter

I sprang up to scream can't you see what's the matter!

Away to the bookshelf I flew like a flash,

Tore open my mind to expunge balderdash.

The words that addressed all the bluster and blow

Gave the lustre of mid-day to how we should know,

In front of my wondering eyes it was clear,

My Liberty’s why my government's here.

With an old Declaration, still lively and quick,

I knew We the People together should stick,

More rapid than eagles the Bill of Rights came,

And I whistled and shouted, and called them by name;

“Now Liberty! Now Safety! Now Grievance Redress!

On, Assembly! On, Religion! Free Speech and Free Press!

To the Rights I've not named! To Amendments unwrit!

To We People defamed and our leaders unfit!

As dry leaves that before the wild hurricane fly,

Self-evident truths, askew and awry,

A government meant to secure and protect,

Now governs with ego, unmoved and unchecked.

And so, in this inkling, I've heard and discerned

Our Founder’s intent that today goes unlearned.

Worth saying again and again to be clear,

My Liberty's why my government's here!

Dressed in two parties, from his head to his foot,

Uncle Sam is now tarnished with ashes and soot;

A partisan bundle he's flung on his back,

And he looks like a swindler just opening his pack.

His guise – how it sparkles! His eyes though are scary!

His cheeks are so sallow, his nose is so hairy!

His droll little mouth is drawn up in a scowl,

The odor that's wafting is corruption most foul!

The stumps of our rights he holds tight in his teeth,

And the smokescreen encircles his head like a wreath;

He has a flat face and a distended belly,

That heaves when he breathes like petrified jelly.

From his pack he lays out an undignified spread

Of judges and lawmakers and agency heads;

A roll of his eyes and a scrunch of his neck,

Soon gave me to know Uncle Sam is a wreck;

He speaks and his minions go straight to their work,

Upholding bad laws and creating more murk,

One party's too much, the other's too little,

Both too pretentious, divisive and brittle.

Worth saying again, and again I will shout,

“You've got it backwards! Turned all inside out!

I wish you would listen! Here's my Christmas cheer!

My Liberty's why my government's here!”

But he’s covered his ears; to his team gives a whistle,

And away they all hide, with nose hairs abristle.

And I heard him exclaim, ere he dove out of sight,

"Happy Christmas to some, and to all a good-night."

Life is not fair. There will always be another who is better off than me; and even more who I perceive as better off than me. There will always be a circumstance that would improve my lot in Life; and many others where, from a distance, the grass appears to be greener. Some of us constantly move from one lot to another, and some of us settle down and make the best of it, and some of us give up and make the best of it, and some of us are perplexed by the thought that Life is not fair. …I am pondering the difference between settle down and give up and I am amazed by those who are perplexed.. But that is not where I want to go with this.

To acknowledge Life is not fair is to acknowledge nature; most specifically my nature. I will always want for something. Be it tangible, intangible, tangible leading to intangible, intangible leading to tangible, intangible leading to greater tangible, intangible leading to greater intangible, and on and on and on and on; I will always want for something.

I have moved now from Life is not fair to my nature is such that I will always want for something. Where to next? Perhaps acknowledgement that your nature is such that you will always want for something? Which (though seemingly a step backward) may lead me to the realization that you may also see Life as unfair. Will this realization lead to empathy? Or resentment? Competition? Respect? Duplicity? All of the above. And then some.

It feels now like I am no longer being led to a next logical step. It feels now like I am simply living; better for knowing that I am not the only one. To get hung up on a detail is to clump through heavy snow, head down against a biting wind. To deal with “all of the above and then some” is to run, (at times guardedly and at times with abandon), and feel the amercement of a gauntlet and the exhilaration of a marathon. To move past the fact of consciousness is to swim naked and free in the shallows and in the depths, coming up as necessary for air and sustenance and sunshine and to clothe my brazenness in modesty.

I am not the only one.

And because I am not the only one, I have to come up for air and sustenance and sunshine; and clothing. When I come up, I will come up to run; but on occasion I will find myself clumping through heavy snow. For me, the brazen exploration makes the detail bearable; and the detail makes the gauntlet preferable and the marathon worthwhile. And each time I come up, the experience makes the brazen exploration increasingly more brazen.

Moments stolen here and there. To see me reading or writing, deep in thought, one might not see risk and adventure, but I am there. To question everything – to doubt everything – to, each morning, start with nothing – no knowledge, no assumptions, no identity, no hope – and to spend the day searching for these things – that would be the ultimate in thrill-seeking freedom and adventure. But of course I am tied to my detail, and to the fact of my consciousness. So all I can do is glory in those stolen moments; here and there.

This is how it should be. Moments interrupted by a butterfly, or a speeding car, or a menial task, or a heart attack. Moments interrupted by Life. This is how it should be.

To get hung up, to move past, to acknowledge another, to live some moments, and to steal some others; this is how it should be.

And though it should be this partially because it is this, I believe part of “this” must be brazen exploration; or at least, exploration; even if only in the shallows, clothed in caution and constraint.

Details are not fair. The fact of consciousness is not fair. But I believe each one of us has opportunity to steal a few moments, here and there.

If I believe I am deserving, and if I believe I am good, and if I believe I am fulfilling a purpose, and if I believe strongly enough in belief, then nothing else matters.

Here is my response:

I don't believe I am any more deserving than any one of the other 7,748,096,046 individuals occupying this planet in this moment. And I believe goodness is measured by effort and actions and (sometimes) results, but never exclusively by a hopeful desire or longing for everything to be okay. And I believe that if my sole or (even) overriding purpose is to believe, then I am less deserving and I am nowhere near good.

To be clear, I believe one can be less deserving and nowhere near good in one regard but not necessarily so in others. For example, an individual who fervently believes that guns are good, (and makes it obvious that his or her sole purpose, in this specific regard, is to stand behind that belief regardless of disagreement or evidence to the contrary), is unlikely to work toward or contribute to an interdependent solution for the comparably inordinate number of firearm deaths in this country, because that effort will likely work against his or her belief. To this individual, nothing else, (including the accidental shooting deaths of children), matters. Another way to say this is, to this individual, nothing tangible matters more than his or her belief. So in this regard, in this world, when the belief is paramount, I maintain that the individual entangled in belief and emotion is less deserving than those making a reasoned effort toward tangible results; and if part of to-be-good is to-do-good, then the entangled individual is not good or, at the least, less good. Yet this same individual may be simultaneously leading an initiative to feed and house homeless people, thus doing much good in this different regard.

I want to break down and take a closer look at belief. The definitions below are mine.

• Tangible Belief: Belief that drives reasoned effort and actions toward tangible results that are good.
• Intangible Belief: Belief that requires significant effort to defend, maintain and/or periodically rejuvenate, thus lessening effort toward tangible results that are good. Intangible belief drives emotionally charged or tinged effort toward intangible and/or (fewer) tangible results that have greater potential for less good.
• Duplicitous Belief: Belief that drives effort and actions toward results that are favorable for the believer; often characterized by a sleight of hand or misdirection that claims selfless / benevolent intentions though reality is otherwise.
• Good: As a broad beginning and for purposes of this week's thought, Goodness is measured First, as reasoned efforts toward; or Second, as lack of infringement upon – Life, Liberty, Pursuit of Happiness, Safety, Security, and the General Welfare or Well-Being of First, other individuals and Second, society.

I don't believe that good can cancel out bad. I believe that reasoned effort toward good is necessary in all regards. Any amount of Reliance on intangible belief, in even a single regard, diminishes all effort in all regards. I believe it does so because it distances one from the world, thus lessening the impact of other good they may contribute.

Additionally, effort that works exclusively, or even in part, to strengthen a belief becomes part of that belief. Though it may work toward tangible, (of this world), results, it is not the type of effort that moves one from less deserving to as deserving; and it is not the type of effort that leads one toward being good.

Belief, unsupported by reasoned effort and actions, is like a film or stage set filled with second-hand props and scenery, and bad actors who believe they can act.

Duplicitous belief is more complex than intangible belief because the believer is not only working to persuade and/or trick the skeptic or nonbeliever, but some (and perhaps many) believers are also working to fool him or her self. If I claim for example that guns are good for self defense and are a deterrent to crime and I truly believe this, but I am working as a lobbyist for a large gun manufacturer, then my efforts are duplicitous and because they have become part of my belief (no matter how strong my conviction), my belief is duplicitous.

Or, in a more complex example, if I claim that guns are good and the Founding Fathers intended this right through the Second Amendment which does clearly enumerate “…the right of the people to keep and bear arms” and I couple this with some anecdotal evidence to claim that we need more guns to protect us from all the criminals with guns, then my efforts are again duplicitous, (thus again creating duplicitous belief), because by picking and choosing my evidence I am working to strengthen my belief and convince myself that I am right and advocates of more stringent gun control laws are wrong; I do this selfishly, perhaps for the sake of my ego; or perhaps because I am afraid; or maybe I just like the feelings of power and the rush of testosterone I get when I fire 41 rounds in 4 seconds. I maintain this is selfish because if I were to make the effort to study and reason, I might come across some solid research that contradicts my handpicked anecdotal evidence. And I might come across the Supreme Court decision on the Pentagon Papers in 1971 in which the court acknowledged the tensions inherent in our Constitution; (in that specific example it was tensions between a free press and national security). In his 2010 commencement speech at Harvard, former Supreme Court Justice David Souter explains that “the Constitution has to be read as a whole, and when it is, other values crop up in potential conflict.” The conflict in my example is between “the right of the people to keep and bear arms” and the right of the people to Life, Liberty, Pursuit of Happiness, Safety, Security, and General Welfare or Well-Being. It cannot be emphasized enough: when rights conflict, we the People must choose. At what number of dead children will the right to Life eclipse the right to Bear Arms?

And of course the implications of this thought stretch far beyond the argument on gun control...

Worldwide, of those killed by firearms, 91 percent of the children under 14, 90 percent of the women, 92 percent of the 15 – 24 year olds, and 82 percent of all victims, were killed in the United States. This is according to a study published in 2015 in the American Journal of Medicine that included the following 25 countries: Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Korea, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, Slovak Republic, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, United Kingdom (England and Wales, Northern Ireland, Scotland) and the United States.

I am shocked. I am embarrassed. I am angry.

I don't want to rehash previous thoughts on gun control. But I do want to explore connections. What does this say about us as a country? Is there a common thread that stretches, (beyond our inability to understand the danger inherent in our negligent, nearly nonexistent gun laws), and helps to explain our inability to understand reality across multiple spectrums?

Regardless of evidence to the contrary, those who fervently believe that guns are good also believe that those who disagree are wrong. I believe the common thread is fervent belief. Too many in this country take a stand for a fervent belief and will not move away from that desperate entrenchment for fear of showing weakness; for fear of being left behind; for fear of being left out; for fear of change; for fear of progress; for fear of being wrong; for fear of losing faith. Reason does not stand a chance against ardent, devout, impassioned, emotional, heartfelt, devoted certainty; no matter how ignorant that certainty may be.

I may have angered some with the word “ignorant” above. If so, and you're still reading (or listening), then that's okay. I want a reaction. In fairness, ignorance for me is defined as not knowing and/or incapable of knowing. And a large part of this week's thought revolves around a recognition of the inevitability of individual ignorance. I don't know far, far more than what I do know, and what I do know I am not sure of. Those who fervently believe would likely fervently disagree, especially with the second part of that statement. Stop for a moment, choose a personal belief, and ask yourself if you can say these words about that belief: “What I do know, I am not sure of.” When a belief becomes an unyielding conviction, the individual becomes a quiescent and condescending guardian of a possible truth perceived as The Truth. Constant questioning tests and strengthens faith.

And this is supported by the definition of belief: “confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof.” Why are we so afraid of rigorous proof? Why are we so afraid to be skeptical? To ask questions? To admit to uncertainty? Amongst all the believers, I don't know how to choose. Amongst all the options, I don't know what is best. Amongst all the disagreement, I don't know why it must be so divisive. Amongst all the factions, I don't know who is right. I do know what I believe in this moment but I don't know if it is what I will believe in the next moment. Without rigorous proof I will constantly, in each moment, question myself and question my beliefs. I will listen to and study differing opinions. I will defer to rigorous proof from those I believe (in this moment) to have more expertise than what I possess. I will continue to raise my personal standards for rigorous proof. I will know that I don't know, and even then, I will question that. Some would call this indecisive, cowardly, weak and/or ineffective. I call this a recognition of reality and a desire for interdependent learning and progress. Immovable, unchanging certainty will only keep us where we are at. And as I look around, where we are at is not a very nice place.

I have talked to fervent believers who agree it is not a very nice place; but rather than work together to learn and change and progress and survive, according to the overbearing and unsympathetic judgement of a fervent believer, it would be a much nicer place if we would all just drink the kool-aid.

Some believe that good government protects the individual by not allowing him or her to be swallowed up or bullied by a majority. Some believe that good government shapes the individual by encouraging and/or dictating behavior consistent with majority thought. Those who believe that good government should protect, believe the individual free to pursue (and to change direction and to ultimately determine) their own path and outcomes. Those who believe that good government should shape, believe all individuals to be raw materials necessary for efficient administration in the service of social harmony. Major arguments for the first scenario include individual autonomy, potential for greater satisfaction, and a sense of free will. Major arguments for the second scenario include a focus on equity and education, greater equality of outcomes and less individual hardship. We believe these two schools-of-thought to be mutually exclusive and in practice we have made them so.

I grew up as a fervent believer in individual autonomy. In hindsight, based on the white, male, middle-class opportunity I was afforded, my passion for pursuing my own path (some would say) was misguided. Some would say that my skeptical, angry nature led me astray. Some would say that I have made mistakes. And I acknowledge that I have created some hardship that could have been avoided by playing it safer. Regardless, my white, middle-class, male upbringing has been and remains a mitigating factor which from a distance makes me appear not-so-different from other white, middle-class, males of my era. Yet I believe that many (and perhaps most) of those who may judge my path to here as (even minimally) erratic, would claim to prefer individual autonomy; but it appears (to me) that our current day-to-day reality is effort toward social harmony and less individual hardship. Most anyone though, that would claim to prefer individual autonomy, would likely not argue that social harmony and less individual hardship is a bad thing; but they might argue it is not possible. And on the flip side, those who claim to prefer social harmony could not argue against individual autonomy because they do argue (as seen in their behavior and actions) for a selective individual autonomy granted only to those in power. So who do we choose to lead us? Those who empower their constituents but lack confidence in them? Or those who make rules for their constituents then exceptions for themselves? Or, in a less cynical light… Those who are realistic? Or those who are idealistic? Today, those in power, (both the realistic and the idealistic), are not those best suited for power. Today, our argument should not be about the ideology behind good government, but should instead be about the distinction between good government and our current state of affairs. Today (and until we figure out what good government truly is) perhaps we should focus more on specific definitions (such as defining hardship) and less on big picture ideology. Today there is a huge gap between the well-being of those few in power and the well-being of the (individual or collective) majority. I believe collective well-being does not necessarily have to preclude individual well-being. I believe truly good government could find a way to merge individual autonomy with social harmony and less personal hardship. The status quo would have to change. Current power structures would have to be toppled. “Radical” is not a word the old guard wants to hear. “Radical” is a word that the majority of us should embrace.

I have previously suggested a radical change, arguing for a universal basic income and the elimination of real property ownership. I believe this change could narrow today's ridiculous gaps in wealth and power, thereby creating a foundation from which individual autonomy AND social harmony is possible.

Many believe power corrupts. Many with wealth and/or power disagree, pointing to (anecdotal) examples of good that have come about as a result of their personal wealth and/or power. I believe that the blinding light (or eclipsing shadow) of wealth and/or power will always distort or skew reality and will always confuse or tarnish the ideal.

Freedom. The realistic want the individual to choose. The idealistic want to choose for the individual. Those leaders who lack confidence in their constituents don't work very hard to right wrongs, believing today and tomorrow should take care of themselves, thus maintaining selective equality of opportunity. Those leaders who make rules for their constituents work very hard to right wrongs, seemingly haphazardly, leaving little time for effective or efficient administration of today and tomorrow. Without today and tomorrow, right and wrong loses its meaning. Without today and tomorrow, there is no freedom to strive for.

…to strive for. This is important. I had a dream earlier this week that reminded me, nothingness is filled with freedom. Existence is filled with restrictive obligation and responsibility. Existence creates a longing for freedom but will never allow it in any sort of pure or perfect form. The realistic desire an individual freedom. The idealistic desire a collective freedom. Both are laudable. Both are worth striving for. Both are ultimately, (in this existence), unattainable. (And perhaps) both are getting in the way of good government.

Many (especially those with wealth and power) believe wealth and power enhances freedom. In our current state, across all strata, material well-being is often seen as freedom or at least a path to freedom. If we could reduce our longing for inordinate material well-being, perhaps we could reframe freedom into a context of interdependent individual and collective well-being. So perhaps the focus of good government should be on radical change that would reduce our collective desire for material well-being by drastically decreasing the ever-widening gap between the privileged-and-inordinately-well-off upper class and the former middle class. Perhaps the focus of good government today could begin this radical change, (as I said approximately 500 words ago), by defining hardship and (now) by defining inordinate so we may begin the process of shortening this spectrum.

I am committed to the idea that radical change is necessary for progress toward freedom and (perhaps, ultimately) radical change is necessary for survival. Tomorrow depends on us moving away from the daily divisive minutiae of today.