hopelesshappiness.com

I am disillusioned. If an illusion is a “false or misleading impression of reality,” then it should be good to be rid of illusions. Right? Yet I am so passionate about justice and fairness and equity that I cannot, I will not, let go. I recognize justice and fairness and equity as illusions, but I refuse to excuse anyone, (especially myself), from working toward the Ideal. When injustice and unfairness and inequity come to light amongst those with privilege, to not work with urgency toward resolution is commonplace; which is why these principles remain an illusion. But when injustice and unfairness and inequity come to light amongst those who profess an allegiance to these principles, (or to related principles such as diversity and holistic review and so-called inclusion), to not work with urgency toward resolution is perhaps the most egregious negligence possible. The challenge comes when those with privilege also profess allegiance.

Week before last some improprieties involving a college admissions process came to light. There is considerable concern, and there are reports that reviews are being conducted, and some obvious low-hanging fruit is being harvested; but for the most part it appears that the activity surrounding the alleged abuses of power are largely focused on scrambling to contain the fallout. I see no evidence of forceful in-depth investigation. Nor do I see any urgency in efforts to improve process or to fill the opportunistic holes exposed by this wrongdoing. What I see are promises and reassurances that I interpret as, “give us time and we are confident that your short attention span will soon perceive a newer miscarriage as bigger and more important.” The most common defense seems to be that the reported misconduct is the exception and not the rule, which leads to administrators claiming victimization, which in turn becomes the reason (or excuse) for inaction, because, after all, as a victim, what could we have done? (All this from individuals who claim an allegiance to justice and fairness and equity.) What happened to checks and balances!? I cannot believe that no one was responsible for ensuring the integrity of the process. You are not a victim! You created and/or ignored the opportunistic holes! You allowed the injustice! You are responsible! Own it!

This is not an either/or outlaw/victim scenario. There are gradations of culpability here, and especially in this Era of Data, there is no excuse for not managing the process. Each step of an admissions process should be clearly defined, measured and verified. And the subjective criteria must also be clearly and extensively defined using precise, consistent words that, with practice, will not only enable an evaluator to evaluate with confidence, but will also create a consistency across the span of evaluators and admissions cycles. Loosely-defined, vague and general statements proposing a holistic selection based on character traits such as courage and likability, without clearly defining courage and likability, is why Harvard has a lawsuit. And it is this same sentiment of pretentious invulnerability that opened the door for the recent admissions misdeeds.

We are so busy congratulating ourselves for upholding these (loosely-defined) virtuous principles, that we do not realize we have crossed back to a perspective that reeks of privilege. Vague and General = Superficial. Superficial = Justifiable Apathy and/or Ignorance. Justifiable Apathy and/or Ignorance = A Path to Righteous Malfeasance. And this Path to Righteous Malfeasance winds through the opportunistic holes we now see in our admissions process.

I read a quote on Monday of this week, from NBC News lamenting “the power to provide a list of students …without anyone second guessing their choices.” I might argue that no one should be “second-guessing” but some one (or ones) should be verifying. Power = Privilege. And someone responsible has allowed unchecked power to filter into daily operations.

I suppose I should not be surprised by the superficial response. Based on the lack of responsibility that created these privileged opportunities, it should have been obvious that those in power would continue to react from on high; unwilling to burden their minds with contingencies or dirty their hands with detail. I have heard that in some circles, ignorance is no excuse. It seems to me that ignorance should be even less of an excuse in our hallowed halls of higher education.

We have to be better. If administrators are unwilling, we need new administrators; or at the least we need some additional administrators. Perhaps this challenge is (in part) brought about due to budget constraints and our efforts to reduce layers of management. Perhaps we have created a gap, (much like the widening wealth gap), that has eliminated mechanisms / processes for higher level thought to be effectively applied to daily operations. Perhaps the unwillingness exhibited by the powers-that-be is to some degree a legitimate occupation with higher level thought as it must be applied to the big picture. And perhaps this, combined with the nature of privilege and power, leaves us with a ruling class incapable of detail. This is no excuse! We cannot trust operational detail, that may produce even a small bit of ethical disunity, to a process that is untested (before the fact) or unverified (and/or) unverifiable (and/or) wildly inconsistent (after the fact). We have to find a way to fill the gap with capable process specialists who understand process integrity. If a budget prohibits this, then an administrator must take responsibility. If an administrator is too busy, then they must reprioritize. If an administrator is incapable, then they must be replaced. No excuses! The big picture means nothing if it is full of holes!

On Tuesday of this week I read that the Education Department has opened investigations into the college admissions scandal. Talk about another GIANT CHASM! Can you imagine this government and this department of education knowing what to look for much less understanding what they see much less really getting their hands dirty with detail. They are there to grandstand and suck blood. And it sounds like the most they can do is maybe withhold federal grants and loans. Sure! That'll show all those privileged rich folks who spent millions to keep their noxious kids inflated! To have the privileged investigating the privileged sounds like a high speed bullet train, on autopilot, being sent to investigate a train wreck. We are now surrounded by multiple layers of privilege actually believing they are upholding justice and fairness and equity, and not even remotely aware that their example of privilege contributed generously to the righteous malfeasance they are now allegedly investigating.

On Wednesday of this week, I read that the same secretary of education sucking blood in the previous paragraph, has cut the Special Olympics from her proposed budget. This repeated pattern of behavior is why it is so difficult for the downtrodden, the actual victims of injustice, to be heard; or seen. They are gently put in their place to be looked upon, (if they are looked upon at all), as objects of pity, while the privileged fight with the privileged to take center stage to promise and reassure and to contain the fallout, and ultimately to maintain status quo.

Go Team!

On Thursday of this week, I read that one of the noxious inflatables is saying she is the victim and blaming her rich and famous parents because her life is now a shambles. Though her cry for help should go unheeded, I am confident her privilege will keep her afloat. This is consistent with the reaction from college administrators. If you can't or won't be charged with a crime, yell at the top of your lungs that you have been victimized. My response to Miss little fled-hiding-good is Grow Up! Why did you choose to not burden your mind with the process and to not dirty your hands with the details? Take responsibility for ensuring the integrity of your own life! You are not a victim! You created and/or ignored the circumstance! You allowed the injustice! You are responsible! Own it!

There is an obvious lack of understanding. Perhaps a portion of the privileged are genuinely incapable of making connections. Perhaps it is a learned defense mechanism in place to protect their cocoon of privilege. Or perhaps it is an entrenched belief that someone so far beneath their privilege could not possibly add anything of value. I suspect all of these factors contribute to the lack of understanding to varying degrees. The privileged can say, “I was where you are,” or “I came from adversity,” but even if accurate, that is past tense. Where there is privilege, there will always be some desultory disregard, because the essence of privilege will always be oblivious both to itself and to injustice.

And from this oblivious privilege, (as it is seated in gloppy government, strolling through hallowed halls, and peering around nearby corners), comes this painful mix of anger and sadness, and disillusionment and disbelief.

Yet still, I refuse to excuse anyone, (especially myself), from working toward the Ideal. I have no choice but to absorb the pain and continue to act.

And it is a privilege to be able to do so…

I am amazed by the depth of superficiality within me. How often do I scrape away at one layer believing there is a depth, only to find myself stymied or merely scraping away at another superficiality. If depth is an extension of a thought intended to find a complexity of related and interwoven strands of thought to enable increasingly progressive understanding and action, then superficiality is excuses and justification as razor-thin-and-sharp tendrils grown from the original strand of thought and whipping about dramatically to stave off opposing strands of thought. Or sometimes superficiality is simply a strand of thought starved by apathy and atrophied by ignorance.

I am tempted to stop here for fear of merely scraping away at another superficiality. But no...

Other related thoughts I can call on to strengthen this (meta-depth) strand include:

• The value of uncertainty and skepticism enhanced by reasoned questioning;
• The importance of seeking dissent;
• The importance of tempering support;
• The constancy of random learning;
• The ability to listen (for understanding) to those individuals who disagree;
• The recognition of ego as a flotation device whose purpose is to keep one's thought on or very near the surface;
• The equitable application of all of these strands to both self and others.

Upon reflection, I see my ego as probably, (in most circumstance), the biggest hindrance to attaining any depth. I also see that I am guilty of first applying many of these strands to others, then (maybe – and to a lesser degree) to myself, which also frustrates depth.

There are some days of late in which I feel totally incapacitated; locked down in a catatonic frenzy of frustration and anger. And it is the excuses and justification, and the apathy and ignorance, that make me angry; that discourage and prevent the strengthening of strands. I am able to apply many of the strands listed above (at least to some small degree) to encourage depth of thought, but I struggle mightily in my efforts to listen to and to understand those who consistently practice superficiality. What are the advantages beyond a delusional sense of comfort and control? And perhaps to excuse injustice? Why is it so difficult for so many to turn their head even slightly, in order to see a sliver of reality? In order to see around or beyond their delusion? In order to see the future as dictated by their superficiality? And perhaps to see a possible future built instead from thoughtful depth?

Until many, many more of us are able to see a sliver of reality, it appears that we are all locked into this immobile insensibility; and in this state I prefer my catatonic frenzy over the alternative catatonic delusion.

… … … … …

Okay.

Perhaps I am hearing others now, for the moment, through myself. Perhaps widespread immobile insensibility is a glossing over of injustice. Perhaps I AM guilty of glorying within the righteousness of my catatonic frenzy of frustration and anger believing there is nothing more I can do. And perhaps this belief further frustrates depth by allowing my ego to pull my thoughts toward the surface.

I might still gravitate toward my catatonic frenzy if I believe the only other option is catatonic delusion. I cannot separate catatonic and delusion, but I suppose I could find a more public forum for my frenzy; though that would not guarantee mobility. To be angry out loud sometimes only serves to push me further from progress by consensus, which in turn fortifies the catatonia in my catatonic frenzy.

So which is best? An angry castigation, (likely ignored)? Or a seething silence? At least in a public forum I am candidly active; whereas in silence I am both ignored and unacknowledged.

Do you think that though immediately I am likely discounted and rejected... do you think it possible that the underlying sincerity and intensity may live on to (even slightly) influence another's sense of depth? Or, do you think that my public passion will only serve to enflame and entrench opposing superficiality?

Depth is the enemy of frivolous comfort and apathy and ignorance. Perhaps if my frenzy is quieted by an innocent candor, the relevance of depth may come across. Perhaps not.

Either way, it is what I see. I still prefer my catatonic frenzy over the alternative catatonic delusion; but I also feel I must become more active. I must create a sense of urgency, built on a faith that many, many more of us will turn our heads ever so slightly and be able to see a sliver of reality. And upon doing so, perhaps we will, more and more frequently, seek the depth that is preferable and necessary.

It must be an active faith.

Justice is hard to come by when those who dispense the justice are the same as those who define the justice. Since those who define and dispense justice are also typically those with the power, any individual or group with a differing definition of justice will often receive justice, (if at all), in a diluted and astringent form. The only way I see justice becoming uniform and, well... just, is for justice to be defined and dispensed only within an exclusive group. Yes! We must divide justice. How do we do this? By dividing into groups? Segregation? Hasn't worked so well in the past. The majority group or the group in power somehow still defines and dispenses justice. Genocide? Though there are a few that would (and some that still do) take up this banner, I would like to think that a large majority of us have grown past this. How about political correctness and organizationally-imposed rhetorical platitudes? Not working so well right now. Here's a thought: if justice can become uniform and just within an exclusive group, why don't we all join the same group? We could call it something unique and clever, like... I don't know... maybe, Humanity?!! Of course this isn't working either because simply put, some us are better than others. Right? Some of us are more deserving and better able to define and dispense.

This pretense is why I am coming around to the belief that the only path to justice may be solitude. I would like to more carefully define solitude.

Giving, receiving. Leading, following. Watching, waiting. Quickening, calming. No matter how attuned I believe I am with another (individual or group), there will be times we are out of sync. There will be times when we both want to receive; or lead. There will be times when a quickening is necessary to maintain momentum, but we both shift into a calming approach. And I suppose the same can be said about my own internal strife. But to what degree are these inner personal struggles a result of potential external discord. I believe the fear of feedback or criticism is a hindrance to progress and justice; an unhealthy internal struggle. I believe the skeptical questioning of existing circumstance accompanied by analysis of expert or respected perspectives is a push to progress and justice; a healthy internal struggle. And perhaps this is the beginnings of a definition for solitude: working toward Truth uninfluenced by unhealthy internal struggle.

It is difficult to forgo approval of others. It feels important to belong. I suppose that because it typically requires a consensus for progress, and because interdependence is exponentially more powerful than independence, and because I have egocentric tendencies, I am hesitant to intentionally undertake loneliness; which becomes another component of our definition. So now we have solitude as: a lonely pursuit of Truth, uninfluenced by fear of criticism or rejection.

If I want to define solitude though, as a path to justice, there is more.

I believe the next question may be, am I seeking justice as it applies exclusively to the realm of me? Or am I looking for a friendless path that will lead to a broader perspective of justice potentially applicable to all of Humanity? Ideally I believe I want to do both, but I am going to start with me.

But how do I ensure that any perceived personal justice I may deem as satisfactory is not in actuality an illusion brought about by ignorance or apathy? I suppose that if I perceive satisfaction I am satisfied, but I am not confident in my ability to judge. Perhaps in the preceding paragraph I was wrong to identify an application of justice exclusive to the realm of me. Perhaps there is no such thing as personal justice. Perhaps there is only a personal path to consensus justice. And perhaps I will never be satisfied. This perspective feels more balanced and farsighted than to trust a personal interpretation based on a strong desire.

So if this last thought is correct, I still believe solitude plays an important role in coming nearer to justice, if for no other reason than to discount fear of criticism and rejection as much as is humanly possible. If I recognize my fear, will skeptical questioning help to temper it? Skeptical questioning, by definition, must challenge a status quo. So if I am going to ask questions that are outside the box, I believe I must be standing outside the box; alone. We have furthered our definition of solitude: a lonely pursuit of Truth, uninfluenced by fear of criticism or rejection, and spurred by skeptical questioning from outside the box.

Is the difficulty of loneliness lessened by acknowledging its value? Perhaps. That is a question that can only be answered by the individual.

So I want to look again at those who define and dispense justice; those with the power. I want to look at their reaction when skeptical questioning challenges their status quo. There often appears to be improvement, at times in the form of increased communications and greater inclusion. But how often does this challenge result in a changing of the guard? Or even a meaningful changing of the guard's minds? Yes, I see incremental progress; baby steps. I do not often see meaningful change. The inclusion I see feels like it is meant to disarm, and maintain status quo. The changes I see are superficial and often appear to merely scrape the surface of challenge, collecting a few key skeptics to bring into the fold. This. Is. Not. Justice. Yet on some level, each one of us wants to be scraped into a fold.

So having been scraped into the fold, I find it warm and comfortable. I find that I do not want to challenge my new friends, which makes it more difficult to question existing circumstance. I do not want to be banished from the box again. I do not want to voluntarily leave the box.

Maybe I will stay for just a little while. Like a vacation. Maybe, down the road, me and my new friends can make some new rules that might be a little better than the old ones. But that's down the road. For now, a little C and Q, (complacency and quiescence), sounds like just the ticket.

Or maybe I have been strategically disarmed And maybe I was wrong in that previous paragraph where I said I was wrong in the paragraph before. Maybe there is personal justice, (or at least the illusion thereof), for those who are, and for those who believe they are, inside the box.

And maybe this brings me another component for my definition of solitude: a lonely pursuit of Truth, uninfluenced by fear of criticism or rejection, and spurred by skeptical questioning from a purposeful stance outside the box.

If only we could all stand outside the box.

If only...

It's a choice...

I often find the process of organizing my thoughts in written form to be cathartic, and because I am personally (and selfishly) bothered in this moment, I am working toward the completion of this written thought, actively hoping to find this simple act will have eased my unease. If it has not, perhaps it will have given me some reasonable direction.

I am being taken advantage of at work, but I am not disturbed by the fact. I feel very strongly that if an individual does not feel taken advantage of in their job AND if their job performance does not reflect a consistent degree of “above and beyond” that is also consistent with the existential purpose of their job, then they are not performing to standard. A strong understanding of the job's existential purpose, a strong work ethic, and a strong sense of responsibility leaves one with no other choice than to be taken advantage of. This is okay, and (for me) necessary. By choice, I have almost always felt taken advantage of in the workplace, and I feel this propensity has served me well. So as I said, I am not disturbed by the fact; but I am disturbed by a perceived aspect of the motivation.

In my current circumstance I feel that there is an additional layer of presumptuous imposition. I need to explore to determine if the reason for this additional layer, (as I perceive it), is substantive or imaginative.

I have a disability. To date, since 2006 I have only worked full time for 24 months in two different largely sedentary office positions. The first time (2014) I experienced difficulty. In my current position, I am managing the limitations well. For the past 12 years though, even in the context of the job, I have quietly lived my assigned definition in my assigned place. I believed this job would help me to escape this involuntary consignment.

With that said, I cannot lose sight of the fact that there are many, many other individuals from many, many other groups, who have for many, many years, been given a place, been constantly reminded of their place, and been cleverly kept in their place, to a much greater extent than I have experienced or could even imagine. So though I am (obviously) exposing personal human frailty by playing the “woe is me” card, I want to believe that my ultimate purpose is to extend this thinking to include this much broader perspective.

I believe it possible for “easy” to countermand good intentions. There is coherence in the “squeaky wheel” method of determining priorities. So the question I am asking this week is, “Are the decision-makers so attuned to the high-pitched squeak of high-powered egos that they are conditioned to not see the unease and to not hear the polite and respectful grumblings of an old man with a disability? Or, (in other circumstance), would the same be true of a young man with a different skin color?” I believe I understand that the prevailing opinion is that this old man should be happy to have a place. And he does say he is happy to have this new place, but is that because he has spent many years in a less comfortable place being reminded that he is less deserving? And how does any of this make it okay for these decision makers (inadvertently or not) to opt for easy? And to forgo any sense of urgency? If there is any validity to this line of inquiry, then there does indeed appear to be an additional imposition placed upon this old man that goes against the diversity and inclusion ideals professed by these powers. To presume that one will stay in their place because they have grown accustomed to it is an additional imposition, but it is often unrecognized as such because 1) a presumption is (by definition) careless and 2) we all naturally tend to stay in our lanes.

In my current position I am part of a subcommittee given the task of revising our holistic review process. I am very passionate about the importance of diversity and it is a substantial privilege to take part in this effort. But a nagging sub-question this week is, “How can I fight for equity for others, if I am unwilling to fight for myself?”

I do not want to reduce the demands of my job. I am so satisfied and energized by the circumstance that I would rather live with these doubts than reduce responsibilities. And this is why I am hesitant to act beyond this written thought.

I do not need the decision makers to explain their lack of a sense of urgency (as perceived by me). (If I do act beyond this written thought), I simply want them to consider my doubts and act according to their personal principles; (not according to some organizationally-imposed rhetorical platitudes). And, I want them to extend that consideration and (if there are any) those resulting actions, to encompass others who are also suffering presumptuous imposition.

One of the early management principles I learned from the writing of Stephen Covey was that we spend far too much effort putting out fires and not nearly enough effort taking care of those tasks that are important but not necessarily urgent. This may be more true today than it was thirty years ago.

Finding and resolving presumptuous imposition is important.

Diversity and equity are important.

Holistic review is important.

From where I sit, we are lacking urgency where urgency is most needed and most important.

Or perhaps I am simply an impatient old man

Unable to die, and feeling every bit of the pain as your body is cut into four pieces with a two-man crosscut saw, slowly so as to give the villagers time to rest, and still unable to die, with a painful awareness of each assault from every stroke of every sawtooth, to have your body parts literally carried to the four corners of your land and buried, separately, all while continuing to maintain an awareness of each of your now suffocating quarter-pieces laying in the dark, damp earth, but no matter how you try, unable to gain control over any of your parts, unable to rise up as one to fight the powers-that-be, and still unable to die.

This scenario was presented in a story I read this week and it put me in mind of our circumstance in this country. To maintain power, those powers-that-be divide and separate and they have been doing so since before the birth of our nation. The most blatant examples are of course first Native Americans and then (and still) Blacks. And this division according to color and/or culture, represents the first (and perhaps most tragic) quarter-piece.

The second division includes many (if not most) of those individuals from the first division, and also includes many more who are simply unlucky and stuck; and in the eyes of the powers-that-be, undeserving. For a more complete accounting and understanding of this group, look at our laws, regulations and policies concerning discrimination, and look at the groups represented on the lists of those requiring any form of government aid. Of course these are the poor, both in wealth and in opportunity.

I think of those who are present in both of the first two quarters described above, and I can't help but cringe at their pain from being individually cut in two and then buried separately and forced to remain in both segments.

The third and fourth divisions are not buried as deep as the first two.

The third division is comprised of those who don't care to know, and the fourth division is comprised of those who don't know to care.

Apathy is the main characteristic of those in the third division. Sluggish and slow, as long as they see some occasional sunshine and are fed and watered more regularly than their more deeply buried counterparts, those in this group typically find no cause to rise up and look around, much less wander the land seeking wholeness. They are detached in body and mind. Many actually believe themselves to be comfortable in their dank, dark burrow.

The fourth division is the most favored division. The powers-that-be spend more time with this group because it is this group that is the most easily influenced. These are the followers. Ignorance is defined as a lack of knowledge, learning, information. Members in this group are not necessarily incapable of learning, they simply choose to learn from, (or more accurately, to believe), the powers-that-be and only the powers-that-be. The individuals in this group have linked their identity to the powers-that-be, perhaps believing that they are now powerful by association; and the powers-that-be have returned this favor by cauterizing their raw, cut edges, allowing more frequent sunshine, providing painkillers as necessary, and courting their allegiance to keep them on-board and in-line.

No matter the unctuous elocution, the poor and the unwashed remain buried deep. And by herding the sheep and anesthetizing the indifferent, the powers-that-be are able to keep the poor and the unwashed from rising up to stain the purity of the homeland.

Me. I am paycheck-to-paycheck poor; and lucky to have paychecks. I am poor in opportunity, and poor by association. I am given voice but I am not heard; I am given no place to be heard. I have also spent some time on the fringes of the unwashed, and I am better for the experience. Once upon a time I was a sheep; and as a sheep, on occasion I believed I represented power, but in hindsight I was a caricature, a parody, a joke.

It is good to maintain an awareness of all four quarter-pieces, and it is good to understand that the dividers, those that appear to wander their homeland freely, are in actuality followers. They are not given their power by a higher power. It is not their birthright. They are not more deserving. They are not more moral or righteous; or correct. Yes. The powers-that-be are merely followers who are where they are largely due to a random series of events, and in some cases perhaps partly due to some manipulation of some random events that have presented themselves for manipulation thus giving the individual an impression of control which translates as a feeling of power which in turn is misinterpreted by other followers as righteous or deserving or (at the very least) correct.

So, if the powers-that-be are merely followers, then the remaining majority of followers are following followers, and the reality is exposed as a duplicitous scheme structured to soothe egos and allay fears. The poor and the unwashed, (and for that matter, the sheep and the indifferent), are buried because they represent a fear that is buried much deeper. To embrace all Humanity as one, would mean that the ego would have to acknowledge that we are responsible for us and for the world we live in, and that scares the oblivion out of us because it is so much simpler to irresponsibly divide and separate and follow other followers who (like us) are moral, righteous and deserving.

Until a large majority of us are able to rise up as one:

• Until the indifferent look around and see this smaller majority that needs some help digging out, or
• Until the sheep see themselves as sheep and decide to undivide,

as a whole we will continue to languish and wither until all that is left are followers. And though this is what followers want, for everyone to think what they think and for everyone to believe what they believe, if all that is left are followers, as a whole we will be at one-quarter strength, and one-quarter strength is not enough. Imagine our strength and our potential if four quarter-pieces come together as one; a single focused body unconcerned with cross-cut saws, shovels and burrows.

I believe there will always be some that are indifferent, and I believe there will always be some sheep; and though these two divisions will likely maintain their association and identity for some time to come, more and more I am seeing a willingness to look around and on occasion a willingness to scrape away a little earth and allow a little sunshine to trickle through. We need more. We need kind and caring bulldozers and steam shovels to gently lift our quarter-pieces from their unresting places. The poor and the unwashed have so much to offer and add, and without them we are not whole.

The simple, sad fact that you recognize and acknowledge these four divisions, makes them real. We cannot rid ourselves of this reality by ignoring, refusing to utter, or outlawing these descriptions. Our Past, sanctions divisiveness. Our Present, confirms our past. Our Future, demands bulldozers and steam shovels. Our Future, demands a coming together as one. Our Future, will be decided by you.

Today we are a parody, a caricature, a joke.