hopelesshappiness.com

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.

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.