hopelesshappiness.com

I aspire to egoless productive contribution. I like to believe that I am a skeptic and a learner and a thinker. In my actual day-to-day, I am a flawed human who too frequently perpetuates the status quo.

Every one of us is flawed and every one of us perpetuates; this should not be an excuse.

But because I see myself as I am and because I see us as we are, I am sad, which at times can demoralize and create personal feelings of inadequacy; and during these times I become quiet and still, thus perpetuating. More and more, my sadness becomes an excuse to stay within myself, thus limiting the reach of my contribution, but (so far) my sadness also remains a force driving me to better myself, and it continues to keep my ego in check. (So far) it is still a productive sadness.

To ensure it stays so, this week I am making the conscious decision and taking palpable action to not be so quiet and still. I am seeking a wider audience. I am working to extend my reach. It may be a futile gesture, but if I am to be a fool regardless, why not? For nearly eight-and-one-half years I have been posting my written thought weekly; (and perhaps, based on results, weakly). I don't feel that what I have to say is particularly new or original, but I do believe that each week I work very hard to come to a better understanding. And I do (very strongly) believe that by organizing my thoughts in written form, I am holding myself accountable. It is much easier, (and less complete), to spout off verbally and/or via one of the many technologically-enhanced spouting choices we have today. And, it is much easier (and still less complete) to have opinions based on entrenched beliefs and today's headlines, than it is to doubt and question and then to take action and actually do some actual research. (Yes, I did just double-down on actuality.)

A solid, stable and consistent sense of how things really are is important, because one's actions in a given moment are directed by one's perception in that given moment. Reality will always be filtered by both external and internal filters, and, (depending upon the filters), to varying degrees, it will always be poorly lit, and/or out of focus, and/or funhouse-mirror-skewed. I like for my reality to have minimal lighting and focus problems with no wavy mirrors, and this is why I work very hard doubting and questioning and studying. I believe that to

1. base my reality on verifiable evidence and/or (in a given moment) reasoned consensus and majority expert opinion, and
2. to be able to differentiate between an expert and not an expert,

will keep me closer to reality. And I believe that 1) reason and 2) recognition (as stated above) are two teachable skills necessary for the long-term survival of Humanity; obviously skills that must be learned and practiced by a large majority of Humanity. From where I sit we appear to be a very long way from that majority, hence my decision to be less quiet and still in order to encourage (even a handful of) others to reason and recognize.

I understand that my contribution may not amount to even a dimple in a wrinkle in a ripple in a disappearing wave in an ocean, but the same dimple doctrine applies to any scorn or ridicule I may fear as a result of my efforts. I believe that for me, in this moment, the critical factor has become effort leading to personal learning and growth; and if the example serves a greater purpose, say a wrinkle instead of a dimple, okay. Though my purpose should not be to market or promote my effort, if I can do so expeditiously and if I truly believe that my thought and effort can contribute to a greater good, first for individuals and thus by extension for all of Humanity, then perhaps I have an obligation.

So beginning this week I aspire to enterprising egoless productive contribution. And regardless of the outcome (or lack of outcome) I must consistently remind myself that my purpose is the effort (toward personal learning and growth) and not the meta-effort (to promote my purposeful effort).

Again, high-def reality, though it exists, is beyond human discernment. But with effort, utilizing reason and recognition, I can continually adjust the lighting and focus so I am able to (at least) maintain visual contact and (perhaps) come within arm's length.

To lose sight of actual actuality is to have no purpose.

Near the end of his book (“A Thousand Small Sanities”), Adam Gopnik asks a complex and intriguing question. A concise version of the question is immediately below, followed by a summary of the circumstance:

Are the sharks eating the people because of the Democrats or because of the Republicans?

It appears sharks are coming closer to shore in the New England area and they are doing what sharks do; they are eating people. The Democrats blame the Republicans, claiming man-made climate change is causing the sharks to come closer to shore, and the Republicans blame the Democrats, claiming it is an overabundance of “protected” gray seals attracting the sharks. The seals are protected from the fishermen who kill them as pests because they negatively impact the fisherman’s livelihood. Mr. Gopnik marvels at both the absurdity and the significance of this argument between Republicans and Democrats; and I have to agree. Perhaps if we were not so busy blaming each other we could maybe find some time to sit down and reasonably resolve the issue together; (the absurdity). Yet it is completely characteristic of the divisive times we live in; (the significance). It seems like “sharks eating people” is a pretty important problem to figure out, and because it is, I am confident (in my assumption) that some serious, sincere experts and authorities did come together to work on a solution. And I am also confident in assuming that there were pontificating politicians, (both Republicans and Democrats), on the sidelines stoking fires and taking advantage of enflamed emotions. So, I am blaming partisan politics for not working on the actual shark problem, and I am also claiming that the Republicans and the Democrats have chewed up and spit out far more people than have the great white sharks along all of our coasts combined. That being said, now how do we resolve the problem of our Republican-and-Democrat-infested political waters?

To work toward an answer to this question, I want to extend this analogy. Here we go:

• The sharks closer to shore are the Republicans and the Democrats.
• The sharks in deeper water are the enfranchised elitists who empower the Republicans and the Democrats. (Note: some of the sharks closer to shore are also enfranchised elitists.)
• The fishermen are the capitalist conservatives.
• The gray seals are the minorities, the immigrants, the underprivileged and the disenfranchised.
• Those protecting the seals are the progressives.
• The experts and authorities are the liberals.
• The people being eaten are part of the uninformed mass.
• The people not being eaten are conformists and/or followers and still (to varying degrees) part of the uninformed mass.

As sharks, the Republicans and their benefactors are coming after the gray seals. They believe there is an overabundance of seals adversely impacting the fisherman’s way of life, and they want to be rid of them in any way possible. Republican sharks love to trigger emotions, most especially, it seems, fear; and they are good at it. They probably also came up with a slogan. Maybe something like – Let's make fishing great again!

As fishermen the capitalist conservatives simply want to ply their trade with no interference from outsiders; be they seals or those protecting the seals. Many of the fishermen (and perhaps most) don't have any negative personal feelings against the gray seals, they just want them out of the way so things can go back to the way the fishermen remember them. Let's make fishing great again!

As gray seals the minorities, immigrants, underprivileged and disenfranchised would like nothing better than to get away from the shallows and extricate themselves from the turmoil, and now they have numbers, but those who are protecting them did not think to also provide them with an escape route. Though they are sentient beings and (according to many) as deserving of consideration as anyone, they are still looked upon as gray seals and treated as pests. They are trapped.

As sharks the Democrats and their benefactors are all about the big picture and don't really see individuals. When there is blood in the water, they consider it a painful but necessary part of the process for the greater good, and they feast upon the resulting anger and sadness, spewing it back out to move the masses toward radical change. After all, a shark has got to eat. And though the Democrat sharks go to great lengths to ensure equality of outcomes, they also realize that it is better to be a shark than a gray seal or one of the uninformed.

As those protecting the seals, progressives truly believe they are doing their part to save the world, and in a sense, they are. But do they have to be so Damn smug about it? I know an accepted norm today, was a radical idea yesterday. And most radical ideas that become accepted and ultimately do help us to progress, like it or not, come from progressives. And many progressives know this, and they believe strongly in the likelihood of improvement, and they believe it would come much quicker if only everyone would listen to them. Additionally, many progressives do not believe they are ever wrong; about anything. And they are so Damn smug about it.

As experts and authorities, the liberals ask a lot of questions, make a lot of suggestions, and seem to make a lot of mistakes. I suppose that is typical of their process of trial and error, and they probably make fewer mistakes than we are led to believe by the sharks and the fishermen and the protectors, but still, one would think they would have more confidence in their plans. The fishermen and those protecting the seals seem pretty certain about their paths. Why can't those who actually implement and execute know beforehand the best thing to do? Is this the 21st century or what? Shouldn't we be able to traverse the path from point A to point B with fewer twists and turns? Are you an expert? Or not? How can we trust so much uncertainty? Come on man… Do your job.

As a people being eaten, the individual ignores and denies the first signs of danger and even the first nibble or two, and then they are surprised as Hell when they are bitten in two.

As people not being eaten, the uninformed mass continues to ignore and deny, and remains blissfully unaware.

As a people not being eaten, many conformists simply go along to get along.

As a people not being eaten, some individuals realize that on occasion they must conform in order to not become a gray seal.

As a people not being eaten, the follower is afraid and seeking comfort and security.

It is okay to choose to be a fisherman, an expert, an authority, or a protector.

It is not okay to choose to be a shark; and as a shark, it is not okay to choose to swim close to shore.

The fishermen and the protectors should, (at least on a somewhat consistent basis), consult with the experts and authorities.

By definition, experts are avowed lifelong learners and skeptics.

Authorities who are not avowed lifelong learners and skeptics are not authorities; they are sharks who occasionally wear people suits.

Experts and authorities recognize their limitations and understand the inevitability of change and unpredictability.

Experts and authorities do not come across as overconfident.

Today, confident certainty is overconfidence.

The gray seals often have no choice.

And because they have no choice, the gray seals have no confidence and no hope.

Though the people being eaten may have a choice, the fact that they are eaten is understandable and forgivable.

Though the people not being eaten may have a choice, the fact that they remain oblivious or the fact that they continue to follow is understandable but maybe not so forgivable.

Though the people not being eaten may have a choice, the fact that they conform is understandable and (on occasion) forgivable.

Today, sometimes I am a gray seal…

…and sometimes I am a people not being eaten.

Forty years ago, and up until about fifteen years ago, I spent some time as a shark. But back then, I believe we sharks stayed further from shore doing what we did in deeper waters, and doing it in a way that maintained, (more so than upset), the balance.

Perhaps my memory is faulty. As I really think about it, perhaps as a (very small) shark I did come closer to shore than I like to remember, and perhaps I did so, so I could don my people suit, crawl on to shore, and pretend to be an authority.

As a shark, I felt powerful.

As a people not being eaten, I feel powerless.

I realize now though, that as a shark, I was deluding myself. When presented with a gray seal or a people just begging to be eaten, the only real power I had, was the power to choose to swim away. To eat those at a disadvantage was not power; it was instinct and greed and gluttony; it was easy. To choose to swim away though, back into deeper waters requiring moderation and balance – that is power.

As sharks, we need to exercise this power to choose, and as people not being eaten, we need to drive all the renegade sharks, who are choosing instinct and greed and gluttony and easy, back into deeper water.

We have structures in place that offer the depth and nuance necessary for moderation and balance. These structures were created to keep our sharks, our Republicans, Democrats and enfranchised elitists, in their place; and these are the waters in which sharks should swim. There will always be sharks. Today, they are far too close to shore.

On paper and in theory, we are a republic. In practice we are a privileged democracy in which the majority is tallied from a select group of enfranchised elitists and conformists. A republic is established to protect the rights of the minority from the will of the majority. But today, not only is the minority unprotected, the promise of equal opportunity for the minority has become a barely whispered hint of “Maybe; if you're really, really very lucky.” Our judicial system is complicit. And because the will of the majority is the will of a select group of enfranchised elitists, (which is not the will of an actual majority), and because of the complex entanglement of today's bureaucracy, in practice our democracy is not an actual democracy, of any type. So, if in practice we are no longer a republic and we have become a perversion of a democracy, what exactly are we? I see our democratic tendencies and I say a perversion of democracy, because I believe that as long as there have been power struggles, (i.e. politics), there has been an uninformed mass of conformist followers who give physical weight to the will of a majority thus allowing for a measurable claim of majority; but the difference between then and now (I believe) is the ever-lessening equality of opportunity created in large part by the ever-widening wealth and power gap. Yet the sheep still flock. So, even if we can continue to maintain a friable connection with democracy, we appear to be drifting further and further from any kind of Constitutional Republic. Our judicial system is complicit; (it is worth repeating). So, what are we?

Some say we have become a plutocracy. Some say we have always been a plutocracy. And I suppose a plutocracy and a privileged democracy share many of the same characteristics. So the privileged plutocrats would like to continue to claim democracy, but if they were forced to admit to any type of oligarchy, they would declare it an aristocracy. With the generations piling on though, any self-proclaimed aristocrat, (especially one involved in any form of politics), has very likely become a distant echo of whatever excellence may have contributed to the good fortune handed down. I would like to believe that we are not so far down this path that we are forever lost. I am not quite ready to label us as miscreant. Despite the plutocrats and our current day-to-day practicalities of plutocracy, we still have the structure of a republic and the underpinnings of a democracy, so if (first and foremost) our judicial system would come out of its coma, shed its skin of partisan hues, and properly interpret our Constitution, perhaps we can begin to halt this hideous transformation that has us hulking and rooted, and perhaps we can blaze a new trail that will allow us to continue our pursuit of the Founding Fathers vision.

So I guess that's what we are. A seemingly indelible hulk, unmoving, unthinking and at risk of crumbling into a handful of footnotes in some far-flung future's historical compendium. Today, in this moment, we are a Hulkocracy.

A hulk is defined as “a bulky or unwieldy person, object, or mass.” What better definition for our individual politicians, and our partisan cliques, and the complexities of our bureaucratic entanglement. Though we are what we are, depending upon one's perspective, we call it by different names. A plutocrat (self-recognized or not) lives in the past and calls it a democracy. A conservative votes for a democracy. A liberal hopes for a democratic republic. A progressive sees a plutocracy. And today it is this insistent, entrenched segmentation that has created our massive, immobile unwieldiness. We need to move from our respective fortifications and reach out to each other to better understand the fear, anger, sadness and (sometimes) joy that has us so divided.

As previously said, our judicial system is complicit. Until we recognize the minority as those who do not have a voice, (hence, those who do not have a say), and until we recognize the necessity of nonpartisan Constitutional judicial intervention to protect all individual rights, and until we acknowledge a wealth and power gap that is forcing a (soon-to-be-if-not-already) majority of citizens into this minority (socially / financially disenfranchised) status, we will remain a Hulkocracy.

According to bankrate.com, if income were suddenly lost, more than 50% of Americans would be unable to financially maintain for more than three months, and more than half of those could not make it for even a single month. The majority of us are already financially disenfranchised. And this is very much a silent majority, because once I recognize my financial disenfranchisement, my fragile state makes it very difficult for me to speak out on anything that could endanger what little security I do have. So, to avoid and/or mitigate social disenfranchisement as well, I must conform. I must become a follower. I must become a sheep. The minority has become the majority, yet as a member of that majority-minority I am not a part of the privileged majority beyond being able to, (with someone's permission), barely hang on to my conformist-follower status.

Again, the actual majority is the de facto minority and the de facto majority is the select group of enfranchised elitists who (erroneously) believe they represent democracy. And I suppose there is some truth to the claim that it has been this way since our Founding; but somehow, today, we are still in a position to overturn this de facto reality by interpreting and applying the de jure potential of our Constitution as (I believe) it was meant to be employed. But until we do, the nagging question, “When will it be too late?” will continue to nag.

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…