hopelesshappiness.com

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.

Wouldn't it be nice if, upon making new acquaintance, instead of being asked “what do you do?” we were asked “who are you in your best moment?” That answer could be, a parent, a partner, a learner, a thinker, a poet, a writer, a friend, a teacher, a worker, a creator… That short answer could unfold in so many various ways, or it could stand on its own as a more meaningful introduction.

I am not necessarily what I do; though in some fortuitous circumstance, I may be. Some individuals may consider the question and choose to present a multi-faceted characterization. And many answers are compatible, but the question requires some constraint because there are only so many roles one can fit within a single “best” moment.

Regardless, knowing who you are is critical to self care. Who you are will (or should) directly impact where you are going, which will in turn provide context for self care; because how better to take care of oneself than to work to become the embodiment of who you are?

Yes, we all have daily demands that will take us in different directions, and sometimes in an opposite direction. Knowing who you are is the first step.

Think of yourself in your best moment and reflect on who you are.

I have written on this before, as said advocating for the question above upon making acquaintance, instead of the traditional “What do you do?” I have not looked back at my previous written thought, so there may be some redundancy, but in context this feels relevant for this week.

Taking a deeper look at self care, I acknowledge its importance, but I encourage caution. If not careful, I believe that the importance of self care can provide reasonable justification (or an excuse) for one to cross a line. I believe the border between self care and selfishness is narrow and easily crossed; often without realizing one has done so. Though in the physical world I am against building walls, perhaps this personal boundary would be an appropriate place for a barrier.

And perhaps by thinking of myself in my best moment, this reminder can serve as a retaining wall of sorts by differentiating between personal excellence and selfishness. Self Care is important, but it must remain within the confines of my striving for excellence. I suppose my ego can persuade me to believe that its interest is my interest, but for me, (and I believe for most of us), my best moments are egoless. Though I may on occasion glory in my ego, my best moments are more typically characterized by productive contribution involving effort and sacrifice and resulting in some learning and growth. And if this process is mutual, the moment becomes more valuable; though I feel the need to benchmark mutuality against unassuming (and unrewarded) personal contribution, effort and learning and growth, to guard against ego. I believe the ego diminishes learning and growth and devalues effort and sacrifice, though in some circumstance it can initially drive productive contribution. The trade-off though (especially in the long haul) is not worth it because ultimately the ego becomes inattentive and heedless and will likely drive contribution and the contributor off the road and maybe off a cliff.

Simply put, the ego has no place in a best moment. Which brings me to my next thought flow. In today's culture how do we increase egoless productive contribution when so much interaction is dictated by so many egos? In the workplace, in public, on social media, and even with (those we consider close) friends and family, strong egos impose, direct and monopolize. Genuine and sincere (when they do appear) are too often quickly trampled by pretentious and rhetorical.

There are a number of ways to help individuals to see the dangers of ego, but the process is difficult to (in some cases, seemingly) impossible because the individual must cooperate. If an individual refuses to work to understand the critical importance of equality and equity, and if an individual adamantly continues to believe that “me” and “us” trump “them” even when the “them” they punish are their own descendants generations into the future, then (again) how do we increase egoless productive contribution?

Pound the Drum!

Again!

And Again!

And Again!

Pound the Drum!

And Again!

I am encouraged, but I fear that the progress I see is anecdotal and/or too little too late. When I look around I do see progress. I also see some regress. But I am most disappointed by the status quo movement. Though oxymoronic it is an accurate reflection of the busyness exhibited by (what appears to be a majority of) us working so hard to maintain a semblance of sanity and control in this bureaucratic quagmire we call western culture.

So perhaps to simplify is a necessary first step. I attended a meeting yesterday in which we discussed a workaround to the fact that one set of bureaucrats required a name badge and ID number to access training and another set of bureaucrats required the very same training before they would issue a name badge and ID number. What a waste of effort!

So how do we simplify? How do we survive, (much less advance), when required to navigate the shark-infested waters of bureaucracy? How do we repeal the second law of thermodynamics (entropy) as it applies to our quagmire?

Don't misinterpret. I am not saying eastern culture (or any other culture) is better; (I don't know). And I am not saying we are not making progress; (though I do believe that to survive we must somehow become quicker and more efficient implementing solutions). And I do not have a nicely packaged, ready-made answer that is guaranteed to solve all our problems; (though I will continue to pound the drum with observations and suggestions).

But here is what I do have as (what I believe is) an absolutely critical and necessary first step for each one of us as individuals:

1. We must realize there is a difference between an expert and an ego.
2. We must practice differentiating between experts and egos until we can readily recognize which is which; (see #5).
3. We must learn to listen to experts and discount egos; (no matter how persuasive they may or may not be).
4. We must know that most politicians are egos, and most experts are reserved.
5. We must study and read extensively, (individually), so that each one of us may evolve into experts on expertise.

Egoless Productive Contribution.

A few weeks ago I began a discussion about the quality of national healthcare (comparatively between nations) with a friend and I stopped because I realized I was not necessarily speaking from fact. My “certainty” was coming from hearsay, conjecture, personal skepticism partially created by mistrust, and sources that may (or may not) slant perspective to fit an agenda. I am confident that my friend's certainty may be influenced by similar factors, though instead of mistrust and skepticism, he revealed trust and confidence; (in my opinion, naively so), but I was suddenly uncertain so I told him that for me to continue the conversation I would need to gather some facts.

I began by simply searching for “quality” of healthcare and found some consistency in that Canada and the U.S. (the specific countries that initiated our discussion), are not typically in the top 10, and on one ranking from the World Health Organization not even in the top 25; (Canada is #30 and the U.S. is #37). But I also found that these rankings include a complexity of criteria such as life expectancies, mortality rates, cost per capita, cost as a percentage of GDP, and other (some unfamiliar, some vague and subjective) measurements such as years of potential life lost, patient rights, waiting times, services provided, quality, access, administrative organization and safety. Additionally I found that many of the results of these measurements may not reflect quality of healthcare as much as they reflect quality of life. And I found that the nature and character of the National patient in each country also impacts the results. More than in any other country, (except perhaps China), it appears that the typical U.S. patient is a demanding, bullying, pretentious, skeptical, argumentative crybaby who must have their way and plans to live forever. This drives up cost by forcing the system (already afraid of litigation) to order too many expensive tests and perform too many expensive procedures, and it (likely) adds to the stress of the individual thus possibly helping to explain our nation's recent reversal in a decades-long upward trend for life expectancy.

So where do I find the facts?

Or perhaps more importantly, what specific facts am I looking for?

I just blew up cost as an objective standard because the United States as the most (or one of the most) expensive countries, (depending upon the source), may be more reflective of our individual character than it is of the quality of our healthcare. And though an anecdotal case could be made, (as it was in a recent article from CBS News reporting on a caravan traveling to Canada for $30 insulin instead of staying at home and paying $340), I am afraid if I argued that case I would be overwhelmed by a plethora of other confirmation bias examples.

The best I can make of many other criteria including access and efficiency, from what little research I have done, is that much like cost, it becomes a matter of personal experience influencing perspective, and in its aggregate (between comparable countries) is probably close to a wash anyway.

The one outlier to “factors that are likely a wash” between the U.S. and Canada is simplicity or ease of use. If that were the yardstick, by all accounts the U.S. would come out on the short end. But one could argue, (and I suspect that most of us would agree), we would not mind going the greater lengths to add years; and when we do, (driving up cost in the process), we truly believe, as Americans, that we will get those years because we deserve those years; though again, the outcomes between the U.S. and Canada appear to be similar.

So do I go along with consensus algorithms and expert opinion and accept that there are many countries with better healthcare systems than both the United States and Canada with the small satisfaction that (as I originally claimed) Canada overall has the edge over the U.S.? Or do I stick to my guns and make up my own mind based on unfounded assumptions, childhood indoctrination and fake news, and continue to believe what I believe?

I suspect I am better off listening to the more moderate, reasonable, fact-based algorithms and experts, even if the results of their measurements do not reflect my perspective as impacted by personal experience and opinion. I also believe however that the more informed, realistic perspective of experts would be potentially more beneficial if we studied those countries found consistently in the top 5 or 10, and stopped arguing about middling countries like the U.S. and Canada. It is another example of why perhaps we would all be better off, on all fronts, if we paid closer attention to the experts.

Bottom Line for U.S. vs. Canada: because it is complex, cumbersome and difficult to navigate, and because I found more specific examples of higher cost here, I still believe that healthcare in the U.S. is of a lesser quality than that in Canada, though the gap is not as dramatic as I believed before my limited research.

So what am I going to say to my friend when I see him this weekend? I am probably going to cite the story on the insulin caravan and say, “see, I told you so.”

I read this week that children who see an individual being treated badly are much more likely to blame the recipient of the abuse than to consider the tormenter responsible. And this blame comes with no explanation or knowledge of why the individual is being treated badly; the children simply believe the individual deserves it. I am going to extrapolate from this research to a premise, knowing that my “leap” may be just that; but it feels right.

The Premise: Not only a strong majority of all of us but also a strong majority of those who consciously deny it, believe that bad things happen to bad people and good things happen to good people; with one partial exception.

The Exception: When something bad happens to me, I do not deserve it. When something bad happens to anyone else? Yes. They have done something bad to bring on the bad. What goes around comes around and all that. Right? Except for me, of course. I am the exception.

This exception extends to family and friends whom we know well, but still falls under the umbrella of “me” because the closer they are the more their misfortune impacts me, and because I know I am the exception it is logical to conclude that they too are an exception.

So what? It is the way of the world, right? I believe it does not have to be.

Today we are smarter than we have ever been. I know looking around some days, it is difficult to fathom that; but I believe it to be true.

I believe a very large majority of us can understand the logic that follows: if I am the exception because I am me, and if everyone has this concept of self entrenched within their being, then everyone is the exception because everyone is me and no one should have bad things happen to them.

The saddest part is that because there are so many powerful, pretentious bullies and abusers, many of their victims are convinced that they do deserve bad things to happen to them and some believe that good things will not or cannot happen to them and they give up.

The most difficult part to overcome though is not the individual bullies; they will come and go. The most difficult part to overcome is the gangs of bullies; like the Republicans and the Democrats, and the theists and the atheists, and the wealthy, and the bureaucrats, and all of the smaller bands of victimizers, formed and found within and around, (and learning from the example of), the larger gangs.

Belief in The Premise (conscious or not) and belief in The Exception is supported by confirmation bias and anecdotal evidence and perpetuated by superficial reasoning and ignorance. And anyone who actively identifies with a gang or band of bullying pretenders, (no matter how desperate the denial), is working to support and perpetuate their belief.

We have to move from superficial reasoning and ignorance to a depth of analysis that will bring us to better understand the necessity of seeing Humanity as One; the necessity of survival. We have to move past our fear. Any active division between us and them justifies a degree of unreasonable and/or unwarranted fear, which in turn justifies further division between us and them. I believe we are smarter than this. I believe we have to be smarter than this.

Our fear is misdirected. We are afraid of them when we should be afraid of us. For those who understand that everyone is me, it is logical to conclude that there is no us and them, there is only me which is in actuality us; all of us. There is no way to divide me. I am one. Yet fear continues to rule.

So what? It is the way of the world, right?

I believe it does not have to be.