hopelesshappiness.com

This week I was asked to escort a group of new students from one hospital complex, across the street to another hospital complex. I dutifully led them down the hall, took a right, took a right, took a left, down two flights of stairs, took a right, long hallway, took a left, long hallway, took a right, down one flight of stairs, took a right, another right, out the main entrance, around the circle drive, long sidewalk, took a right, across the street, took a right, long sidewalk, around the circle drive, in the main entrance, took a left, long hallway, took a right, waited for the elevator, got in the elevator, took the elevator to the fourth floor, preceptor waiting, handed them off.

Somewhere between a long sidewalk and a circle drive I asked if anyone knew a more efficient way from one hospital to the other. One student quickly responded, “you mean the tunnel?”

In my mind I started screaming at myself, “There's a Tunnel? A Tunnel!! There's a gosh-darned tunnel and I’m on a scenic route slogging my way through traffic and 100 degree heat!?

I made light of it. In the elevator, I apologized for being a fool. How could I not know about the tunnel? One or two others on the elevator, not with our group, were openly amused. Openly! Amused! Visualizing this Pied Piper March of Fools.

Dummy! Dummy.Dummy.Dummy! I'm an idiot! Story of my life! I never know about the tunnels. But worse, I never think to ask. Or if I do, it's only after I have made a fool of myself. In hindsight though I realize that I am not a fool for not knowing. I am a fool for not asking. But then again, what is that proverb about wise men following the laughter of fools? Is it truly just to know to go a different way? Or are these wise men looking for new ideas and new ways of thinking?

Yea, though I walk through the Valley of the Shadow of Fools
I shall fear no folly, for thou art fools with me.
Thy nod and thy laugh, they comfort me.
We preparest a stable disparity in the presence of mass obedience.
They disjoint our heads with feckless toil, yet my thoughts runneth over.

Surely I shall follow the Way of the Fool all the days of my life,
And I will seek the House of Happiness forever.

And therein lies a question begging to be answered. They followed me! Why do you follow a fool? If thou art fools with me, who then is the bigger fool? Is it the leader who does not ask? Or is it the follower who knows but does not tell? Or perhaps it is the blind follower who does not know and does not ask?

Some might argue that until it is determined with certainty that you are following a fool, it is better to wait. There could be another tunnel. There could be a new idea or a new way of thinking. There could at least be new and/or different scenery. The leader is a leader for a reason, right? It's not possible someone could become a leader without first knowing about the tunnels; is it?

Ultimately I believe it is incumbent upon the leader to ask. However, I do not believe that excuses a follower who knows, from commenting on their Way, which may prompt the leader to explore options. Of course, not knowing the leader, a follower may fear reprisal, or anger. A considerate follower may also be reluctant to embarrass the leader by pointing out that the leader is a fool.

I can take some solace (and partial credit) from the fact that I eventually asked. Too late for this time, but I will know for next time. I am grateful that I will (likely) have a next time. Additionally, I wonder, if I would not have asked, would anyone who knew about the tunnel have ultimately said anything? And did anyone else in the group not know about the tunnel? If so, no one spoke up – for fear of being associated with a fool? Or for the possibilities presented within new and different?

Yes, it is good to ask if there is a tunnel. And a conscientious, caring leader should locate the tunnels and then consider the advantages and disadvantages of the expediency of tunnel vision vs exploration and discovery. Wisdom requires a considered willingness to leap. A fool frequently leaps without looking. The bureaucrat and the traditionalist live in their maze of tunnels.

So I suppose that if enough people have had enough, they might be willing to follow a leaping fool who is not looking, but who is also not in the tunnels. We have realized that there is no sunshine in the tunnels. There is no leaping in the tunnels. There is no possibility of discovery in the tunnels. There is no wisdom in the tunnels. And in the tunnels there is considerable fear and consternation. In the tunnels the only possibility for joy is in finding new tunnels; or in building more tunnels.

The tunnels are important and necessary, but we have realized that to seek wisdom, we must leave the tunnels. We must also come to realize that there are no all-knowing sages or gurus and there are no wholly enlightened thinkers, in the tunnels or outside the tunnels. In the tunnels there are bureaucrats and there are traditionalists. Outside the tunnels there are fools and there are those seeking wisdom. Outside the tunnels, those seeking wisdom remain fools because wisdom requires a considered willingness to leap. By definition, a leap requires some uncertainty, and only a fool would leap not knowing where, when or how they might land. It is worth repeating: outside the tunnels those seeking wisdom are fools still. This is why bureaucrats and traditionalists stay in the warmth and security of their darkened tunnels. Today it feels like we are following a tribe of traditionalists who support and advance a horde of bureaucrats who worship a pack of fools. We would be better following those outside the tunnels who still know the value of the tunnels, but are not afraid to ask for help, and who find joy in leaping. We would be better following those (fools) seeking wisdom.

This week I was asked to escort a group of new students from one hospital complex, across the street to another hospital complex. In the process I was exposed as a fool. But along the way I asked for help. Along the way I searched for wisdom. And in glimpsing wisdom, (still just beyond my reach), I learned something of value. I learned that there was an available tunnel for when expediency was a priority. I was reminded to ask lots of questions. I was reminded that we are all fools. I learned the difference between a heedless fool and a thoughtful fool. And I experienced the joy in leaping.

I ended last week's post with the question, “But what then?” To that end…

I believe we are not only closing the knowledge gap between us and the powerful, but many of us have come to realize that the gap was not much of a gap to begin with. I believe those of us who have come to this realization are naturally paying more attention. Instead of “What then?” I believe it is past time to ask, “What now?” We must advance this timetable in the active hope that past time is not too late.

So, what now?

How do we open the prison gates? Stop bickering? End intolerance? Embrace our individual strengths? Move past the past? Eliminate the ever-widening wealth gap? How do we save the world?

It appears to me that before we are able to work together to save the world we must first resolve at least some, maybe most, and perhaps all of the underlying issues…
…underlying issues as outlined above and last week.
…other underlying issues that I have overlooked and/or neglected to address.
…any underlying issues that divide and/or maintain hostility and/or fortify resistance.

Below are some ideas to address some of these underlying issues.

A universal basic income has been suggested. But we struggle over how to fund such a sweeping initiative.

• The concept of reparations is still being discussed.
• Education.
• Perhaps an expedited, widespread, focused education on argumentation that differentiates political rhetoric from fact and politicians from experts would help us to move forward more efficiently.
• And perhaps some additional expedited, widespread, focused education on the unbiased reality of Western European and American history would help us to attribute context and see things as they are.

Of course without the understanding that could come from selective focused education we will be unable to progress to sweeping change or even consider doling out long overdue justice.

Thus, without a large majority of individuals willing (and eager) to understand facts and reality as opposed to relying on tradition and believing rhetoric and myth, we will be unable to save the world.

I am discouraged. It appears that to save the world, (which by the way includes us – Humanity), we need to wait for tradition and rhetoric and myth to die off. But I am afraid, (truly afraid), that by then it will be beyond too late. We are a species. Humanity has killed off 200 species; today. Instead of an attritional background rate of 6 per month, we are responsible for killing off 6,000 species per month. Tradition and myth embrace reckoning. As a species Humanity’s day of reckoning is coming. Wouldn't it be preferable to kill off tradition and myth, and save Humanity?

We cannot wait for the old guard to die off unless we are willing to die off with them. It is past time to bring down the powerful and to subvert the status quo.

I am back where I began. What now? If the answer is to be rid of the old guard, how exactly do we pull the plug on tradition and myth?

It would be difficult to outlaw rhetoric.

It would be impossible to outlaw fear.

It would be, (it is), contentious to legislate specific learning.

It is difficult to trust someone who is not afraid to say “I don't know.”

It requires little to no effort to trust someone who says “I have all the answers; follow me.”

It is impossible for one individual, (or even for one faction driven even in part by belief, creed or opinion), to have all the answers.

It is a fact that any individual who claims (or gives the impression) that they have all or most of the answers, is a liar. (The same is true of a faction connected by common belief, creed or opinion.)

It is difficult for a liar to backtrack or admit mistakes.

So in the face of these overwhelming and divisive constraints, again, how exactly do we pull the plug on tradition and myth?

Perhaps we need to attack it directly. I go back to the earlier question:

Wouldn't it be preferable to kill off tradition and myth, and save Humanity?

If presented as a choice:

• Tradition and Myth, or
• Life

I realize that the old guard would continue to fight for tradition and myth but if we simplify,

Tradition and Myth must die or Humanity (as a Species) WILL die,

Perhaps more fence-sitters and bystanders and comfort-zoners would become more attentive and more actively hopeful.

And then perhaps as a second wave attack, supporting the initial full-frontal assault, we could go after rhetoric:

1. Rhetoric will be the Death of Humanity.
2. Those who advance the purposes of rhetoric will be the Death of Humanity.
3. Politicians will be the Death of Humanity.

Synonyms for rhetoric include:

• Hyperbole
• Bombast
• Balderdash
• Grandiloquence
• Magniloquence
• Pomposity
• Rant
• Verbosity
• Big Talk
• Hot Air

Rhetoric supporting Tradition perpetuating Myth defining Humanity will result in the Death of our species.

When we discount rhetoric we weaken tradition.

When we weaken tradition we muzzle myth.

When we muzzle myth we redefine Humanity.

If we redefine Humanity according to reality, we postpone Death.

And isn't that the point?

Choose!

1. Rhetoric, or
2. Facts.

Choose!

1. Experts, or
2. Politicians.

Choose!

1. Tradition and Myth, or
2. Humanity.

Choose!

1. The Future, or
2. The Past.

Choose!

1. Extinction, or
2. Survival.

Choose!

1. Life, or
2. Death.

I Choose Humanity.

I Choose Life.

Isn't that the point?

Am I a bigot if I am intolerant of a bigot? By definition, yes. A bigot is “a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief or opinion.” Intolerance is defined as “an unwillingness or refusal to tolerate or respect…” So perhaps the linchpin here is respect or disrespect. if I respectfully and with sincerity, (yet firmly and rationally) disagree and disapprove of what a person or group says or stands for, I am not practicing bigoted behavior. And if I then make an uncontrived good faith effort to understand why they believe or think as they do, I am more likely to tolerate their insensitivity and respect their right to express their opinion. If their opinion is presented to arouse sentiment, to elevate emotion or (worst case scenario) to incite violence, to be intolerant will only enflame that passion, whereas understanding and respectful tolerance has a better chance of defusing volatility and calming a situation and even an entrenched mindset; especially if the reasonable course of thought extends to seeking common ground. But to be clear: violence must not and cannot be tolerated. Violence is not a belief, creed or opinion, and violence is not worthy of respect. Violence is an injurious and forceful action that can be engendered by a belief, creed or opinion, and is often triggered by emotion. If that line is crossed, there may be no choice but to judiciously fight fire with fire as prescribed by the reactive realization of sound law enforcement principles.

All well thought, but the reality is I am Human, they are full of hate and simplicity, and intolerance begets intolerance. I believe though that most bigoted people or bigoted factions who work along that spectrum from “arouse sentiment” to “elevate emotions” to “incite violence” do so because they are afraid. And though most will not admit to being afraid, when I understand that to be their underlying motivation, I can have more empathy; (but they're still ignorant).

Why is it so damned difficult to tolerate intolerance?

I will come at it from another angle.

You may believe that I am in some way inferior---a lesser being---and though I disagree, I have to respect your right to believe that, and, you have to respect my right to disagree. Regardless, you need me and I need you. We have no choice but to work together. You cannot do it without me and I don't want to do it without you. Energies spent on divisiveness are so much better spent on saving the world. And just because you want to widen this divide between us by loudly and viciously disagreeing with everything I say, your sanctimonious double-edged intolerance does not change the fact that the world needs saving. And to do that, you need me.

It is past time to (both literally and figuratively) open the prison gates so as a nation (and ultimately as a world) we can operate at full capacity.

It is past time to stop the childish bickering and blaming and embarrassing pissing contests.

It is past time to realize that intolerance (even of intolerance) is a step backward.

It is past time to stop practicing colorblindness and embrace the positivity of our individual ethnic and cultural strengths to contribute to the universal progress that is necessary for saving the world.

It is past time to realize that our nation was founded and built on the backs of an underclass identified and labeled by the color of their skin.

And it is past time to realize that today, (though the labels have become more politically correct and the underclass has become somewhat more diverse and inclusive), our nation continues to operate on this caste system in order for the powerful to maintain status quo.

It is past time to bring down the powerful and to subvert the status quo.

I am actively hopeful that past time is not synonymous with too late.

I can hear the old guard struggling for breath; fighting to live. Though today they appear to have revitalized their outmoded thoughts and ways, I believe they are not long for this world. And nearing the end of their life of simplicity and ignorance, I see them desperately working to prop up their crumbling, collapsing walls by sowing fear and fertilizing nescience.

The old guard is afraid of change. Their younger (and frequently poorer) followers, (more accustomed to change), are afraid of ubiquitous integrity. For the old guard to maintain power requires an illusion of preeminence. For their younger (and frequently poorer) followers to follow requires a belief that reality is not real and “we” are more deserving. To maintain superiority requires metaphorical (and sometimes physical) barriers; boundaries that create a delusion of safety and security; a stronghold that keeps “them” out; all delusional because the fear is misdirected. Their fortifications will not protect them from themselves. The question becomes will the offspring of the powerful work to maintain the illusion, and if so, are they savvy enough to pull it off? Or are the younger and (frequently) poorer followers paying more attention, closing the knowledge gap and becoming less easy to fool?

I can hear the old guard struggling for breath; fighting to live.

Is it their last gasp?

Let's actively hope so…

But what then?

Imagine…

You are forced onto a shabby yacht with 99 other people. There are 40 life vests on board that can be undetectably worn beneath one's clothing. You are told that during your journey there is a reasonable chance, (due to inevitable stormy weather in which all hands are forced on deck), a number of you will fall overboard. If you fall overboard, there is no way to return to the yacht. You are told there has never been a journey in which no one fell overboard. You are told, (and you have seen it to be true on previous journeys), that fewer people fall overboard in stormy weather when all hands are on deck working together as one. It is also explained that each life vest is equipped with a sensor that when activated will alert Search and Rescue and pinpoint your location. You will be rescued and taken back to port to board another yacht. If you fall overboard without a life vest you have little choice but to make your way on your own to a (hopefully nearby) port, not knowing with certainty where that is or if they will even allow you to come to shore. Fortunately this sea contains sporadic shallows that aid you in your struggles; but still, some never find a port in the storm and are forever lost at sea; and a few are drowned. Many others do make it safely to a port knowing there are other journeys on other yachts to come. Very, very few of us are able to stay comfortable, safe and secure on dry land for any significant lengths of time.

When you board a yacht, before departure, you are taken into a small cabin on deck, one at a time, which is where each individual is either given a vest and told, “you deserve this,” or shown a vest and told “you have not earned this.” Sometimes this process of distribution makes sense; often it does not. Most passengers come out of the cabin stoic; not indicating if they received a vest or not. Everyone it seems wants everyone else to believe that they are one of the privileged who received a vest.

Typically there are a few making their first journey; they are positive and excited. Some others are experienced travelers who exude confidence and appear to be up to the challenge. Some appear to be tired and jaded. And some are wary and attentive. Regardless, acknowledged or not, all are afraid.

Each journey varies in length and time.

There are strict laws against taking another's life vest forcibly or otherwise. Punishment is harsh. The only legal way to gift a life vest is to someone who has fallen overboard. The decision must be witnessed and clearly interpreted as free will.

All passengers on your yacht are strangers to one another. Family and friends are traveling on other yachts. You have made plans with family and friends to meet at the next port.

In this circumstance as described in the paragraphs above…

• Not knowing with certainty the length of your journey, would you make any effort to truly befriend another passenger? Or would you actively hope for a casual acquaintance? Or would you maintain a stoic silence and a respectful distance?


• When a traveler falls overboard and flailing in the water admits to no life vest, if you were one of the privileged with a life vest, would you willingly remove it and toss it to the stranger to ease their struggles?


• If a group of passengers all with no life vests, recruited you to mutiny, (believing you were one of them), what would you do?


• On occasion, one or more passengers may become loud and smug, displaying their vest and hinting they have the answers and can help those with no vest. These blustering egos may also work to organize the passengers into an us and a them that cross lines of privilege. How would you react?


• In every port there are warehouses full of life vests. When asked why only 40 are allotted for each journey, the bureaucrats answer in bureaucratease. When asked why so many must struggle unnecessarily, the high priests answer in moralitease. When asked, “Is there a better way?” – the thinkers answer in realitease. How do you reconcile the Law with Goodness, Goodness with Truth, and Truth with the Law?

I want to respond to this last question.

Our Law is incompetent, inconsiderate, inequitable, injurious, inexplicable, and ultimately inconsequential. Goodness is self-evident, meaning evident in itself NOT as defined by a self or an ego. To make a Law in order to enforce or advance Goodness is an interpretation of Goodness, which is not Goodness. To make a law in order to deter (or decrease the frequency of) Badness may (or may not) have some merit. Too many of our Laws today allow for Badness in the name of Goodness. Where Goodness is self-evident, The Truth is unknowable, thus unattainable. Our truth (which is far from The Truth) is evolving, at different rates for different people, and at different rates for different groups of people. It is sad when one depends upon doctrine, policy and propaganda to determine their truth. We want to believe that our Law is framed by Goodness and reflects Truth, but in practice and approach the Law is incompetent, inconsiderate, inequitable, injurious, inexplicable, and ultimately inconsequential.

I believe at the end of my life I will not be judged according to man's laws, but rather according to Goodness and how hard I worked at pursuing Truth.

Is it possible that the (seemingly prevalent and widespread) contentious hostility and anger we are currently experiencing, is necessary? Do we need to take one step backward to move two steps forward? Is this shift in social custom meant to be an alarm of sorts? If not, even if it is simply unthinking unintentional random occurrence, can we still somehow harness the energy and use it as a wake-up call and a propellant? I have asked this before.

This week I have been working very hard to find an uplifting or spiritually moving or even light and humorous thought flow. Something to help me escape, (even if only for a few moments), this torrential cascade of stupidity and ignorance. I understand the frustration and the reaction from those of us beneath the effusion; the desire to fight fire with fire. But flailing our arms about and blustering incomprehensible howls of protest and reciprocated disparagement, does not seem to be improving our circumstance. Perhaps I am not privy to work going on behind-the-scenes that will save us from drowning; (which is an example of quiescent wishful thinking, which is not helpful).

In this moment, it feels like we are drowning.

Damn It!

In this moment, it feels like we are living in the moment for the moment.

We must look ahead!

We must live in this moment for the future!

All of the future! Not just future generations to come after our demise, (though that is where our ultimate focus should be), but also next week, next month, next year and next moment.

In this moment we must know that this divisiveness will continue to plague us long after some semblance of sanity is restored.

To fight fire with fire, is to live in this moment for this moment.

To bluster and flail, is to fail!

When I closely observe the surrounding storm of divisive ineptitude, I understand that by fighting it I am affirming it. If I simply keep my head angled downward, maintaining awareness but letting the deluge flow over me, I am better able to actively hope by working ahead; though in this downpour it is more difficult to have confidence that ahead is the same as forward.

And this uncertainty that I feel, not knowing if ahead is forward, is reflective of our, (all of Humanity's), current circumstance. As a species, we have evolved from reacting to thinking to manipulating to controlling to conquering to ruling to destroying to ignoring. Though most believe that ahead is forward, today, in this moment, ahead is not forward.

As a species, we believe that we are the reason that our world and our universe was created. As reflected in our reference to all of creation as ours, we believe we represent the pinnacle of creation and the point of the story. What if we are only bit players? What if there is more story to come? I suppose if Humanity were to die off, from our perspective the rest of the story would be epilogue. But what if there are other sentient beings in this epilogue? Will they move on to write their own story? And do we then become their prologue? And will they also believe (as we do) that they are the protagonist to their world as antagonist? Or will they have learned from us and realize that they and their world are both protagonists equally important to their story? Or might they learn from us and identify us as antagonist then work to fulfill a subservient role to their World as protagonist? And if they can learn from us, why can't we learn from us? Perhaps this is (again) wishful thinking. Looking around, we have not yet learned that all of Humanity is ONE species; amongst an estimated 8,700,000 species here on Earth. Looking around, we continue to segment Humanity and we look at some elements, (more specifically, we look at “them”), as antagonists. So in the face of this hubris, how in Hell can we come to know that our World (and all its 8.7 million species) is not really our World?

I began the week working very hard to find an uplifting or spiritually moving or even light and humorous thought flow. In the process I have reminded myself that Humanity, in the most generous estimations, has taken part in less than 1/10 of 1 percent of the history of the Universe. And here I am assigning all of Humanity an ever smaller role in the prologue of another story. Not very uplifting; though perhaps a bit humorous.

Will the World have the last laugh?

My heart is heavy.