hopelesshappiness.com

What is the meaning of meaning? This is hard to say because we need words to express meaning, yet words are often inadequate. There is a word for this - ineffable. And this word is a good example of how a word can be inadequate and how a word can muddy meaning. When I use this word am I simply saying that I cannot find the words? Or am I saying that the meaning is beyond expression? Or am I implying a spiritual or transcendent component attached to the meaning? Any one or all of these are valid interpretations, though at this point in this instance, because we are working to define one thing by saying it is indefinable, have we moved from meaning to meta-meaning? Or because we recognize the hazy uncertainty of words, are we actually closer to authentic meaning? And does any of this help me to find or even come closer to the meaning of meaning? Or will meaning always be beyond words?

This takes me to another word that I am actively hopeful, once past, I will get to the point. The purpose (or meaning) of definition (by definition) is the act of making something definite, distinct or clear. Yet because all words are subject to interpretation, (which is by definition elucidation, which is by definition explication, which is by definition explanation, which is by definition interpretation, all with the potential for varying degrees of theoretical exposition), nothing is ever definite, distinct or clear.

And this...

(I am nearing my point now in which I will expound theoretically for several hundred more words.)

…this is why, I Love Books!

Anyone who shapes 80,000 words to cohesively elucidate, explicate, explain, and expound, and does it well... Wow! I don't have the words to describe this marvel of transcriptural engineering. And because I don't have the words you can see I just made one up.

This past weekend in my weekly trek to the local bookstore, I was genuinely thrilled with a couple of finds. They have been added to my list to purchase as my budget allows. When I connect as I did on this trip, it is as if I can feel each one of these millions upon millions of words reaching out to me. I can almost see them standing with hands clasped behind their backs, and leaning forward ever-so-slightly; and I can almost hear them politely, eagerly asking me to read them, interpret them, and find meaning. They must be polite. Not only within the (seemingly shrinking) realm of considerate organized thought, but also within the (seemingly) much larger world of disorganized, rhetorical, loud and abrasive (and often abusive) verbal antics, there is much competition for my attention.

As much as I was lifted and inspired inside the bookstore, I was every bit as much disillusioned and disheartened upon reentry into reality. And as vivid the personification of those millions upon millions of eager words, I could now see each one taking a knee, head down, brow creased, and grimacing sadly at my departure. I have to remember: the lower the lows, the higher the highs. Without the contrast, there would be no possibility of definition.

I believe considerate, organized, well-written thought is the best source for contrast and reason, and I believe it better serves to enhance my potential for understanding than any other form of media. And while there are many outstanding examples of shorter pieces of considerate, organized, well-written thought, I believe books are the better option for a depth of understanding unavailable in any other form. I believe that today far too many of us choose to believe that considerate, organized, well-written thought, (especially that in the form of books), is inaccessible because it is perceived as pretentious and/or disagreeable; or even dangerous. And because of this, when we choose our books, I believe that far too many of us choose simple and safe; God forbid I should think for myself.

Yes, like most I spent many years choosing books that appealed to me, which in hindsight was probably in most cases books that appeared to present a familiar perspective; I judged the book by its cover. But as I stretched myself, I found bits and pieces of alternative thinking which led to larger and more diverse chunks which ultimately brought me into realms of thought I had never thought. Books have guided me from narrow, unmoving certainty to a breathtaking vista of skeptical uncertainty and a passionate and overwhelming desire to save the world. Today, the problem with this desire is that no one seems to want to listen to someone who freely admits to uncertainty, and no one wants to expend the effort to find (much less research) experts for every challenge we face. No, I cannot save the world by myself, but neither can any other single individual or particular ideology. Yet it is so much simpler to gravitate to self-proclaimed saviors.

Perhaps I am not as great an exception as it appears to me; (I certainly and actively hope I am not). But if I am not in the minority, then why are we where we are? Why does it appear that most of us remain entrenched within the narrow, rigid walls of our unmoving certainty. I see very little active synthesis. It appears that much effort is expended to stand still. Yet there are Books! Books can move us! And for all the Books I see, there must be a lot of readers. Right? I don't want to believe that most of us are just buyers and not really readers. So perhaps we are too busy reading to actively participate? Perhaps those who are standing still have more opportunity to control our movement? And because they control, we do not move? And perhaps readers are content to sit in one place and read. It makes some sense. If we perceive movement – if we are moving – it is the narrow, rigid, definite, certain, straight-line movement of narrow, rigid, definite, certain, lazy, straight-line thinkers.

Books can move us!

Eerie morning...

Unmoored
Voices, in a bottle
Near yet far

Stick figure, running
Slender bony arms, pumping
Long legs, brittle then broken

Sprawling, like the fog
Teary-eyed, misty, dewy

The main characters
Are bit players
Isolated
And distant

On stage
Long lines, brittle then broken
Rote
Meaningless

Suddenly!

Nothing.

No matter the effort
…nothing

Even the End
No Boom
No Bang
Not even a whimper
No Time for a whimper

More of a
…poof
Gone

It is the story of you
It can't happen to me
Until it does

Raw
Chafed
Undone

When the fog lifts
If the fog lifts
I Celebrate
The Sun, knowing

I will sleep, hoping

I will wake, believing

I will see

Beyond the shroud of a
Long life
...brittle then broken

I don't want to be patronized. I don't want to be endured. I don't want to be appeased. I don't want to be supported. I want to be understood; and, just as importantly, I want to understand. If I am understood, or even if I feel a sincere effort has been made to understand me, and if that effort is reciprocated, and we still disagree, then we may just have to agree to disagree. And I can live with that.

In this specific circumstance, I cannot be understood in a 30 minute or even an hour-long meeting. Yet that is all the effort that has been put forth, leading me to believe I am on a back burner being patronized and endured and appeased. If we disagree about something this important, shouldn't an effort be made to understand? If that effort is not made, those with the power are either discounting the importance or discounting me; or perhaps both.

You asked what I wanted. I want the respect and the acknowledgement that my interpretation has the potential to be every bit as valid as yours. And in return I promise to make the same strong effort to listen with empathy and understand your interpretation. As I said above, in this circumstance I don't believe this effort toward a mutual understanding can be accomplished in a one hour meeting. And unless all parties concerned have a much greater depth of understanding than what I perceive, (not only of the details but also of my interpretation), I also believe all parties concerned should be present for this effort.

I know this is a lot to ask, especially from where I sit. But you also asked about what I would like to see as an ultimate outcome, and I stumbled because I cannot formulate (what I believe would be) a just and fair resolution without first making this effort toward mutual understanding.

… … … … …

But then again...

Perhaps you are right. Perhaps my role is such that I have only three choices: 1) to trust, 2) to let go, or 3) to raise hell. I maintain it would be better and best to opt for 4) mutual trust and understanding, but the equality of my role is dictated by you. And without this mutual trust and understanding it is difficult for me to let go; and I have found that there is only so much hell to raise before it becomes self-defeating. Yet in many past hell-raising undertakings, I have been known to go to that point and beyond based on principle, in pursuit of my perception of justice. With decades of experience, I am finally though learning to spot this point of optimal utility in the midst of the commotion and from the perspective of my subservience, and recognize it as the place to let go.

Nonetheless, I am disappointed. In this specific circumstance I am pretty confident now that the importance is not being minimized. And I understand (and I want to believe) that my insignificance is ordained for the sake of expediency. But if we disagree in our respective interpretations, I still don't understand why or even how differing roles, (largely determined by random circumstance), invalidates my interpretation. And it is sad that this cloak of bureaucracy serves to hide both justice and injustice from the very people justice is supposed to serve.

And because of this, the words “transparency” and “accountability” have no meaning.

In this circumstance I have been and I believe I will be allowed to glimpse some justice. But that is because of where I sit. There will be many others directly or peripherally impacted, who will never know wrongdoing took place. I understand the practicality of expediency. But in theory shouldn't we practice what we preach regarding transparency and accountability. In theory shouldn't we all publicly admit our mistakes. If we did this, individually and organizationally, I believe it would bring us closer together as we each and all recognize human frailty in each and all. But of course this isn't realistic. There are many, most obviously those at the pinnacles of power, who will never admit to frailty; just look at our Facebook pages.

So lacking this complete and total truthfulness, perhaps we should at least be truthful with ourselves regarding our (lack of) transparency and accountability and instead of professing a “strong commitment” perhaps we should acknowledge our selective commitment.

I understand.

But it is still a slippery slope from strong commitment to selective commitment to rhetoric to politics to fake news.

And I am still disappointed

In the last few weeks it feels like my written thought has been selfish. I have been unable to avoid me; and though this reflects my human nature, it is nonetheless disappointing. But in for a penny...

I often argue that I would prefer to write anonymously and for the past seven-plus years I have been successful in this regard. That is beginning to change a tiny, tiny bit; and I believe it may continue to do so. And there is a part of me, (the “me” part of me), that is looking forward to some tiny, tiny bit of regard. But there is another part of me, (the fretful part of me), that is not looking forward to criticism.

I would prefer my written thought be measured according to its merit and not according to its author. This is partly why I work to avoid selfish, but it is difficult to consistently ignore one's ego. And I believe it is ego that largely drives one to be critical of another; and what better way to discredit another's ideas than to discredit the ideator.

In my decades on and in this plane of existence, I have made my share of mistakes, and it would not be at all difficult for anyone, (including and especially myself), to find fault and attack. Many (and probably most) would zero in on my flagrant disregard for pecuniary convention. My two forays into owning property were (by choice) very short-lived, I have ignored the propriety of planning for retirement, and I have no practical clue what a savings account is used for. I have had the opportunity throughout my years to take advantage of all these privileged perks of a white middle-class upbringing, but whenever I find myself at a crossroads, I seem to consistently choose rebellious disregard. And the “rebellious” has gotten me in trouble more than once. In hindsight I am sorry if my indiscretions were taken or felt personally but I can see now that they were consistent with my distaste for all things conventional. In hindsight I can see that I have never quite grasped the alleged importance of financial security. I have never quite believed that Money is God; or even Good, and I have always felt it proper to put principle before security; (though in hindsight I see that at times my principle was skewed). That may all sound like an excuse. I don't mean it to be. It is more a statement of priorities; but for those who prioritize bureaucratic quantification, I understand your interpretation.

If I were to zero in on my most egregious errors, I would focus on my inability to completely or even adequately define justice. Those on the receiving end of this ineptitude would likely see it as a lack of patience and understanding, which is accurate, but this failing has been a direct result of my insistent certainty coupled with (then multiplied by) the aforementioned inadequacy. And as in the previous paragraph, I am sorry to those who suffered because of my self-serving immaturity; but unlike the previous paragraph, this past uninformed importunity is not consistent with who I have become or what I believe. I am no longer certain. I realize that I don't know. But I still have a very strong sense of justice and fairness. Today though, since I no longer know with certainty, I have to work much harder to attain a more complete, well-rounded understanding; and even then I am skeptical and uncertain. Opinions and decisions today do not come as expeditiously or as definitively as they once did.

Perhaps this direction helps me to understand my reluctance to face criticism. Today, (as opposed to yesterday), my nature requires me to listen thoughtfully to others and to constantly question myself, as a vehicle for depth of analysis and enlightened evolution of thought. But I am finding that the moment I step back to assess, those with (uninformed?) certainty step forward to take control and when I step forward again they have moved on and I am left to catch up. It seems we are all far too busy for thoughtful analysis. Yet thoughtful analysis is exactly what is needed to serve justice.

So to summarize I appear to be a bit of a failure; though aren't we all. I perceive myself to be a little different though because my failure stems from a pursuit of justice, (misguided as it has been at times). But perhaps this is inaccurate. Perhaps this is an excuse. Perhaps my pursuit of justice has been in actuality a pursuit of greater riches beyond my middle class upbringing. But then again, perhaps my failure to find those greater riches is justice, and perhaps at the end we will all find this justice.

You don't get it.

Four weeks ago I wrote nearly 1,000 words that (I thought) clearly presented a perspective that would lead to discussion of and consideration for important over urgent. It was a dispatch asking a question seeking a greater depth of mutual understanding. I did not ask this question seeking support. I was not asking for organizationally-imposed rhetorical platitudes. I was not asking for (what I have interpreted as) condescending pity in the form of “resources” and “rights”. And I do not want to launch an investigation into discrimination or harassment. These are some of the options you have offered. From that reaction I can only surmise that you don't get it. From the reaction that I got, it appears to me that you focused on one word---“disability”---connected that to eight words---“I am being taken advantage of at work”---and if you even read the other nine-hundred-thirty words, (it appears to me that) you ignored their importance in order to react to the greater urgency of those nine words. You don't get it. Have I said that?

You don't get it.

I suppose it is nice that you take me at my (nine) word(s), but I would much prefer you make an effort to take me at my (nine-hundred-thirty-nine) word(s). I know you are capable of discerning meaning from large groups of words, and I understand the mechanical urgency regarding those nine words, so I am sorry to have to come across as angry, but I am angry; and we encourage truthfulness. Right? I truly do not mean to put you on the defensive; I do not mean to give the impression that I am personally attacking anyone. I am not. I am angry at a system that constantly requires urgent at the expense of important, and I am attacking a system that constantly encourages superficiality at the expense of depth. So again, I do not want or need support. I am not seeking pity, or even compassion; (though a little mutual empathy might help us to move forward together). Mostly I am pursuing a shared depth of understanding that will advance our efforts toward justice, fairness and equity.

Four weeks ago I began this effort from a personal perspective that (I believe) has been misinterpreted. Perhaps I am wrong. Perhaps your hands are tied. Perhaps you do get it but you are unable to act otherwise. But whether one's inaction and lack of autonomy is due to a fear of the system or an inability to think beyond prescribed dictates, (and whether one's inability is due to incapability or entrenched groupthink), the results are the same: urgent wins.

When I began this week's written thought I believed I would choose truthful over nice by sending this to you, as I did my written thought four weeks ago. But at this point in the evolution of this new thought, I realize that “You” is not the first person I approached in my effort to share. And “You” is not any of the individuals that each successive individual felt compelled to pass my missive to. “You” is the system. “You” is the compulsion, the prescribed necessity, to pass my written thought up the line. “You” is only you in the sense that you represent this multi-headed monster by doing your job. (And though I understand that is what you are doing, I had actively hoped for more.)

When I first expressed my perspective four weeks ago, I was simply seeking understanding. I was merely wanting to talk to someone to explore then gauge the validity of my inquiry. I was actively hoping for someone to acknowledge the possibility that my thought might help us to advance. I was exposing a human frailty: the desire and (sometimes) need for validation.

But per your official systematized response, you say, “my main concerns are that you feel supported and you feel that you can be successful in your work space.” I don't feel this validates me; I feel this sets me apart. And I now have confirmation that I have an assigned place. I believe I have more to offer than that which is allowed within the confines of my assigned work space. I frequently work to be successful outside of this assigned place, and when it suits those that assign, I have been; (and I still do not want that to change). But in this case, in an effort to advance an important initiative---(Justice!)---by associating a personal example of (minimally offensive) perceived injustice, I obviously overstepped bounds. I suppose I understand why one cannot say “bomb” in an airport, but regardless, I find it sad that a word alone can trigger such an explosive reaction that the individual who utters that word has ceased to exist as he or she was previous to that utterance. This is how I now feel. Handle with care. Kid gloves. Call in the bomb squad; the experts. Instead of finding greater depth, I feel like I have scared everyone out of the water.

I am immensely saddened by this.

But from the reaction that I got four weeks ago, I am afraid to be truthful.

Today I plan to click the little button at the bottom of your second email to indicate that I no longer want or need the aid or assistance of a system that is programmed to react urgently and ignore depth. As I previously said, my original intent was to share this thought in another effort toward a greater depth of mutual understanding. But I realize that would be naïve and foolish. I suppose there is some comfort in that four weeks ago my truthfulness merely mutated into superficial and pretentious niceties. There was a day, and there still are places, in which truthfulness such as mine was and is forbidden, ignored and/or fired. I look forward to the day when truthfulness is consistently rewarded with mutual respect and effort.

… … … … …

I did not click your button. I decided I was not ready to shut this door. I responded, but I was more nice than truthful. Truthful (as more completely presented in this week's thought) would be misunderstood. I left the door open though in order to have some recourse for the two (personally-perceived) ongoing difficulties that may not be addressed to my (personally-selfish) satisfaction. And I cannot help but to think that old and disabled may be playing some part in their current back-burner status; perhaps not overtly on your part, but nonetheless...

I suppose I am expecting too much. To move beyond the reality of triggers and bombs, I suppose, is the equivalent of working to free those who have never been enslaved, (i.e. those in power), and to free those who have never been enslaved is the equivalent of throwing them overboard, with no flotation device, into shark infested waters; and those in power of course would much rather view reality from the safety of the ship's deck. So on board they (you?) will remain, unknowing and unenlightened.

You claim to value justice but when offered the opportunity to experience its reality, you fall back into the safer shallows of urgency. I wish I could say I don't get it, but I do. It is hard and uncomfortable work to move deeper into shark infested waters. This is why you don't get it.

I appreciate the opportunity to express what I feel and I suppose that opportunity is progress. And in fairness, I also on occasion (and more frequently than I like) choose safety. Additionally, I realize that in the greater context, this circumstance (on its current trajectory) will have minimal to zero impact on anyone but me; but that does not make it any less important.

I look forward to the day when truthfulness is consistently rewarded with mutual respect and effort.