hopelesshappiness.com

Think of a time when you were asleep and dreaming; a pleasant, calm and peaceful dream. Perhaps a dream touched by a friendly yearning, and maybe tinged with a soft, bittersweet emotion. Don't try to remember details. Don't think about the circumstance or the setting, either in your life or in the life of your dream. Just remember the feeling; relive the warm glow, and the gentle hunger...

Got it?...

Now, hold on to that feeling and contrast it with a particular stark and difficult reality; a reality uncomfortable and abrasive, and specific to you…

Hold it...

Hold it...

… … … … …

How long were you able to hold on to your peace? How strong was the disappointment? How wrong was your dream?

Odds are, the dream is to your stark reality, as your stark reality is to the underlying reality surrounding us all. Odds are, in your dream you are living your death, and in your life you are living your dream.

Sadly, it is time to wake up.

To believe that I am in control, and that my life has meaning and purpose, because I (usually) pay my bills on time, or because I perpetuate bureaucracy, or because I have Netflix, or because I identify with us, is to be caught up in the superficial trappings of a man-made, artificial validity that invalidates understanding; that invalidates depth; that invalidates wisdom; that invalidates Truth.

I am embarrassed to think what I think and still sit here quietly, sipping my soup and watching the important busyness all around me. I want to stand up and shout! But of course, I won't. I wonder if there are other like-minded frustrations, sitting nearby, threatening this dreamlike status quo. I wonder if there are other like-minded torments, in this place, in this moment, seeking the company of my torments. I wonder if there are other like-minded uncertainties, wandering, lost, and afraid, in this delusion.

Some would say I am the one living a lie. And under the necessity of my uncertainty alongside their unshakable certainty, I won't argue. But I will continue to believe that to know is to give up and to give up is to die; but to be uncertain is to demand questions and to question is to live.

A certainty is an end.

A question is a beginning.

In the span of my life...

• I have been shut up, and I have been shut down.
• I have been held up, and I have been held down.
• I have been given too much blame, and I have been given too much credit.
• I have been given opportunity, and I have been forgiven transgressions.
• I have been given a place, I have made my own place, and I have been put in my place.
• I have had dreams, I have lived nightmares, I have faced stark realities, and I have been bored.

This ebb and flow is specific to the individual. As a people, as a state or nation, as the entirety of all past, present and future Humanity, there is no ebb and flow; there is only ubiquitous reality and unmindful delusion. This is not to say that we have not evolved and progressed. We have. Rather, this is to say that I must expand the moment beyond simply my moment. I must expand the moment beyond my dream, beyond my death, beyond my life, and beyond this delusion. We must expand the moment to include the complete tapestry of individual past, present and future stark realities.

A daunting task. It is much easier to hold on to my dream, to ignore my reality, and to live my death. No questions asked. No consideration given.

Think of a time when you were awake and questioning; full of wonder and energy, amazed by the magic of possibility, and touched by a vibrant skepticism. Was this today? Or yesterday? Last week? Or last year? Or do you have to reach all the way back to your childhood? Regardless, find that feeling and remember it. Relive the passionate strength, the effervescence, the vitality...

Got it?...

Now, hold on to that feeling from when you remember it at its most powerful, and contrast that with how you feel today.

Today we are living our death.

Imperatively, it is time to wake up.

There are far more important things to write about than me. Yet every word I write, every thought I think, comes through this lens of me; a lens that skews and distorts, then projects and reflects and ricochets off other words and thoughts until it has been molded and shaped into a version of my truth. The best I can do is to 1) make sure that as many ricochets as possible come off others' words and thoughts and 2) choose my others thoughtfully.

I began this week thinking “woe is me” and I began to write accordingly. But then I noticed that woe is also her, and woe is him, and woe is them, and woe is us; so why would I ever write about “woe is me”? But as I thought about it, and as I said in the paragraph above, every thought I think, and every word I say or write, includes an element of “woe is me”. So I asked myself, “why not succumb? Why not go all out Woe?” And I answered myself: “Because my woe is fairly ordinary; not terribly interesting.”

I cannot escape me. I believe this to be much more of a curse than it will ever be a blessing. The in-laws would agree. But of course what I mean is that each one of the (in-this-moment) 7,684,028,395 individuals in this world should also believe (like I do) that their ego is a big old ugly “web-footed sea bird of the family Diomedeidae that has the ability to remain aloft for long periods;” common name: Albatross.

And according to dictionary.com's definition #3, an albatross is “something burdensome that impedes action or progress.”

We cannot see this because it---the very thing we cannot see---is blocking our view. Forest and trees? Yes. Also trees and forest. And disease and symptoms. And cure and blame. And future and present. And for many, present and past, and future and past.

To work to move past this encumbrance, I must first recognize it as such. We have advanced in our respectful recognition of other egos, but I must go beyond this mere acknowledgement of others who should not be punished because they are different. More than anything, this idea of “inclusion” strengthens the idea that the individual, as reflected and defined from the ego, is the ultimate say-so. This practice of “inclusion” prevents me from working past my own ego partly because I must keep it intact in order to mollify and soothe other egos, thus perpetuating a cycle. Don't misunderstand; this idea of “inclusion” is an improvement over the divisive injustice that has been the standard practice for the entire recorded history of Humanity. But, this idea of “inclusion” will never lead me to the darkest reaches of my ego. This idea of “inclusion” will never allow me to circumnavigate, to explore, to discover a way off this island of me. In my mind, this idea of “inclusion” is simply a kinder, gentler version of supremacy.

So should I be satisfied with kinder and gentler? Should we be satisfied with a more compassionate supremacy? Each successive generation can lay claim to being more civilized than the preceding generation. But I don't believe more humane is the same as humane. I don't believe more educated is the same as educated. I do not believe more enlightened is the same as enlightened. And I do not believe more fair-minded is the same as just.

We have to find new ways. I have to learn from others and I have to know that what I know will only serve to impede action and progress.

There are far more important things to write about, and to talk about, and to think about, than me.

The history of this country is a history of tragedy. I suppose I could say the same about the history of our world, but like all good citizens, I want to focus on us; at least for now. From the conquest of the Native Americans to slavery to a civil war to two world wars and a great depression to the ongoing necessity of a civil rights movement to the election of our first black President to the election of Donald Trump, our history is riddled with events that remind us of our national character. We work to assert and maintain our power while at the same time posing as a people of compassion and hope. The election in 2008 of our first black President represents the masquerade; the election of Donald Trump in 2016 brings us back to our truer selves. I avoid naming Barack Obama because I don't believe he purposefully meant to represent false hope. Mr. Obama (I believe) was sincere in his efforts to bring us together as a better people. Donald Trump is sincere in his efforts toward divisive power, and Donald Trump is more representative of America as it is. We won nothing in 2008, and truthfully, we lost nothing in 2016. We are the same.

So what do we do?

I believe we absolutely must embrace our nature. Not to glory in it, but to squeeze the life out of it. Those who pretend compassion and hope, are not helping. There are aspects of our character that we can use to muffle and ultimately suffocate our character. We must first rid ourselves of our compassion for the ignorant and of our hope for re-education, in order to kill off divisive pride, and open ourselves to the formation of a new character.

I believe it is important to have no, (absolutely zero), pre-conceived notions for this new character. All of our energy must be focused on the task at hand. We do not have the luxury of so-called time to be nice. If it is not already too late, too late is around the next bend. And anyway, being nice has never really been part of our character. Being nice is a pretense.

Now for the task at hand. My only suggestion that could be mistaken as nice, (but is not meant to be nice; only serviceable), is a universal basic income; see this suggested draft.

Next, get rid of politics and politicians. There are several ways to do this; none very nice; (here is one suggestion covered in this same previous thought referenced above). Unfortunately some bureaucracy will remain but I believe it can be simplified. And with politics gone, the media will naturally and drastically downsize; as it should be.

Next, we implement a voluntary re-education. With a universal basic income in place, those who choose to be ignorant will at the least be out of the way. The rest of us can come to some common ground and work to save ourselves; and by proxy, we will also save the ignorant.

If it is not already too late.

In my mind, this is the task at hand. Of course I have thoughts beyond mere survival, but I believe it obvious, (though not by our actions), that survival is paramount, and to focus on compassion and hope or hatred and power, (as all of our politicians are doing), is to ignore reality.

So in my mind, this is the task at hand: quell the ignorant masses with a universal basic income, which in turn will ease the conquest and extirpation of politicians and their politics, thus increasing our chances for survival.

If it is not already too late.

When I look back at my thoughts as words here, I feel dread; I feel hopelessness. But I cannot feel these things because these things insinuate and encourage hope; and even the tiniest sliver of hope may keep me from the task at hand. I must reach deep and yank at my brutality; tease it, irritate it, enflame it, and make it rise up and devour any and all hope; first mine and then yours. We cannot afford hope. It is too late for hope. Hope will slow us down. Hope will encourage compassion and/or the pretense of compassion which will hinder progress. Some may argue that hope is necessary. Some may say that without hope we will simply give up. Some will say that without hope and compassion we will be unable to check hatred and power. Some will say unchecked hatred and power will lead to violence. I am not advocating a physical violence; that is not an answer. I believe that a large majority of us will continue to realize a widespread common decency. I believe we can maintain and enforce this decency and at the same time recognize our (false) hope and our (pretense of) compassion as merely a justification for our quiescence and lack of urgency. I believe we can guide and direct our national character in such a way that those who seek simple comfort and warmth will not have to sacrifice their desire; I believe, (if given the opportunity), we can help them in their quest. But for those seeking to move toward Truth and Wisdom, those seeking survival, I believe sacrifice is necessary; first, a willingness to see us as we are - ugly, misshapen monsters; then a willingness to acknowledge our repressed savagery and call it forth to vanquish pretense and ego; and finally a willingness to sacrifice “Me” for the sake of “Us” and “Us and Them” for the sake of “We”. For the sake of the future.

If it is not already too late.

The two paragraphs below are from Ray Bradbury's Fahrenheit 451; it is Montag, remembering his grandfather:

“And when he died, I suddenly realized I wasn't crying for him at all, but for all the things he did. I cried because he would never do them again, he would never carve another piece of wood or help us raise doves and pigeons in the back yard or play the violin the way he did, or tell us jokes the way he did. He was part of us and when he died, all the actions stopped dead and there was no one to do them just the way he did. He was individual. He was an important man. I've never gotten over his death. Often I think, what wonderful carvings never came to birth because he died. How many jokes are missing from the world, and how many homing pigeons untouched by his hands. He shaped the world. He did things to the world. The world was bankrupted of ten million fine actions the night he passed on.”

“My grandfather hoped that some day our cities would open up more and let the green and the land and the wilderness in more, to remind people that we're allotted a little space on earth and that we survive in that wilderness that can take back what it has given, as easily as blowing its breath on us or sending the sea to tell us we are not so big. When we forget how close the wilderness is in the night, my grandpa said, some day it will come in and get us, for we have forgotten how terrible and real it can be. You see? Grandfather's been dead for all these years, but if you lifted my skull, by God, in the convolution of my brain you'd find the big ridges of his thumbprint. He touched me. As I said earlier , he was a sculptor. ‘I hate a Roman named Status Quo!' He said to me. ‘Stuff your eyes with wonder,' he said, 'live as if you'd drop dead in ten seconds. See the world. It's more fantastic than any dream made or paid for in factories. Ask no guarantees, ask for no security, there never was such an animal. And if there were, it would be related to the great sloth which hangs upside down in a tree all day every day, sleeping it’s life away. To hell with that,' he said, shake the tree and knock the great sloth down on his ass.'”

The paragraphs below are me, remembering my future:

It is true that a person is not gone until they are forgotten; and a person is not forgotten until there is no trace left of things they have done. A person can live forever through their deeds, so I must take advantage of my allotted time and space to do those things that are important.

But what is important? Is it okay to do that for which I will be remembered, for the sake of being remembered? Or is it better to do those things that may grow into discoveries? Those things that may aid others in their efforts toward learning and growth?

To be important is to disavow self-importance. To be important is to do those things that are important; which in turn is to listen. To listen to people; and to listen to the green and the land and the wilderness; and to listen to both the silence and the stridency within the combined shadows of light and dark; and to listen to the vast empty spaces beyond our world; to listen to Life.

The biggest impediment to important is to listen to myself. I must interpret; objectively – like a machine. And I must translate those interpretations into actions, of my choosing. I cannot do those things that are only important for me, because by listening to myself in this manner, I am not listening. I only have potential to be important if I listen.

I should not listen like a machine and I should not act like a machine. But I should be disciplined and rational in my thought; as much as is humanly possible; like a machine.

We are not so big, collectively or individually. We are not so big. We think we are. And this makes us think we are important. We are not listening. We dream big, but like the sloth, we are asleep. I will not be remembered for my sleep. I will be remembered for what I do.

What I do does not seem big. What I do is not big. Even an entire lifetime is not so big. And even an entire generation of lifetimes, relative to all of Humanity past, present and future, is not so big. And even all of Humanity, relative to all of unrecorded History, is not so big.

Big is important; but important does not have to be big. For me, as an individual human in my allotted time and space, big is not possible. If I see me as big, important is not possible. If I see me in context, I may be important, but never to myself. I cannot decide to be important. To be important is a gift from others; a gift I cannot accept without tarnishing it. Big in my context is not possible. Self-importance is not possible.

Listening and acting, within context, is possible; and necessary. I can listen to my dreams, but without interpretation and translation into action, they are worthless. The same for listening to others, and to the wilderness, and to the shadows, and to the vast empty spaces; to Life.

If we do not listen, the world is bankrupt. Each day, billions of fine actions are sacrificed to self-importance. Self-important people think big and act. It is difficult to discount the self from within my self. It is so very difficult to consistently reason and act thoughtfully to avoid self-importance; yet this is exactly what importance demands.

To reason and act thoughtfully. If that is not my future...

…have I failed?

This week I want to ponder the imponderable: that which cannot be precisely determined, measured, or evaluated. Specifically, this week's written thought is a continuation of my search for "Again" two weeks ago. In that written thought, I was troubled by our baffling inability to differentiate reason from emotion. On the surface this difference appears obvious, but somewhere within the process many of us come to believe that those personal inclinations sprouting from one's determined desire for explanation and control are perfectly reasonable. Garbage in, garbage out. I cannot reasonably explain a conclusion with an unexplainable assumption, yet in this regard it appears that is what many of us are doing. More than the what though, I want to understand the why.

Yes, I have many unsupported opinions and beliefs, (as I believe we all do). I do not want to explore whose delusions are less delusional. I want to explore our inability to recognize all unsupported (un)certainty as delusion, on a spectrum of delusion that ranges from -quite possible to -possible to -unlikely to -we will never know with certainty to -why are we talking about this to -certifiably insane. The midpoint of this spectrum would fall halfway between unlikely and we will never know with certainty, and (to define the flow) quite possible is that which has much tangible evidence, but is not yet considered a fact; (facts are a different realm entirely, not on this spectrum), and certifiably insane is far-fetched fantastical tabloid-headline misconception believed by a very small minority. Discussions on the 'possible’ half of the spectrum have potential to be productive, provided there is agreement from all parties that the issue is on that ‘possible' half. Most discussions in which all parties are on the 'we'll never know' half of the spectrum serve no purpose beyond ego and perhaps to support/justify working to move a “we'll never know” issue into their realm of fact; (i.e. garbage in, garbage out). And those discussions in which there is disagreement as to the half of the spectrum (or the realm) on (or in) which the issue resides, should never be discussions. Agreement, (i.e. common ground) must be established. It has become important, (perhaps a determinant for our survival), to have productive conversation, yet we waste so much potential insisting on conversations in which one party's fact is another's “we'll never know.”

Is this insistence simply ego? Or does the ego come from fear? If so, is the fear subconscious? Or is the fear a conscious, adamant denial further empowering ego?

I suppose one could also deny ego by claiming a natural superiority. To me, this is ego; but I understand how superficial thought can establish this unexplainable assumption as the impetus---the unmoved mover---of all of Everything. And coming from this foundation, (brittle as it may be), it is inevitable that the thinker will assume that of all superior beings He or She is the most superior (or at least the most deserving), perhaps followed somewhat closely by those superior beings most like him or her; and from there it is easy to confuse his or her self in God's image with God in his or her image. And of course the next step is the act of creating Truth and proclaiming certainty. All this based on an unexplainable assumption.

To evaluate and assess tangible evidence feels as if it should be a straightforward process. So the conscious denial and/or the subconscious defense indicates very strong / entrenched feelings, and if an individual refuses to see or cannot see the fear or the ego, how will they ever see the inanity of their thought process? Because of the superficiality, they will suffer from confirmation bias when they look at evidence and results; often, even when the evidence is overwhelming.

So I am struggling to find reason other than fear and/or ego, (recognized or not), to explain the ‘why' in our inexplicable search for Again. Do those most fervently searching for Again deny fear and ego and the inexplicability of their search? Or do these acolytes simply ignore it by drenching it with righteous indignation and surrounding it with pontifications?

I suppose that establishes where I stand. It is maddening.

New thoughts...

I see “Make America Great Again” as synonymous with, “Stop the world, I want to get off.” I understand the sentiment but maintain an awareness that the world cannot be stopped or even slowed, and there is only one way off. I believe this search for Again to be a plea for simpler times and perhaps the ‘why' for many is because they have given up keeping up. Perhaps it truly does not begin as fear or ego, but, like the child who stubbornly sits in the middle of the grocery store aisle because he is tired, perhaps it begins as a sort of innocence or naiveté. And when I look at the evolution of two factors not examined two weeks ago, perhaps this ingenuousness helps to explain the concomitant fear and ego.

These two factors are intelligence and population.

Intelligence
Because IQ tests are revised every few years in order to maintain 100 as the average, an increase in IQ is not readily apparent, but accounting for these revisions, researchers have found gains in IQ since 1900 have averaged about 3 points per decade. This indicates that if an individual with an IQ of 100 today were transported to 1950 they would score around 120 and if they were transported to 1900 they would score around 135; those are leaps from average to superior to borderline genius. But intelligence goes beyond an IQ score. I would take the position that the average adults of 1900 (who would be classified as deficient today) and 1950 (who would be classified as dull today) knew what they had to know for their time. And from this, I would argue that (even if we could) we should not go back to a simpler time because our intellect (both individually and collectively) is in its time. I would extend the argument to say that though we may be comfortable as a borderline genius in 1900 or as superior in 1950, our individual intellect would likely be wasted in that time. In this regard, a simpler time is a dumber time, and today is the time for today's intelligence.

Population
In 1900 the world population was 1.6 billion, and in 1950 it was 2.55 billion. Today it is more than 7.6 billion, right at three times that of 1950 and nearly five times that of 1900. At its most basic level---the number of thinking, feeling, communicating, intelligent, opinionated human beings---the world has become exponentially more complex. In addition to the number of individuals, we have also grown the number of possible affiliations per individual, thus providing multiple identities, often making it more difficult to differentiate us from them. From a global perspective, (and from where I sit), this blending and melding is positive and advantageous; but it seems that those pursuing Again prefer a more clear-cut and enduring line between us and them. In this regard, a simpler time is a more divided time, and today is a time for transition to a global perspective.

So...
Regarding intelligence and population, in our search for Again, simple = dumb and simple = divided. And if I am unable to physically travel back to a time when dumb and divided worked, I understand why an ardent admirer of Again might want to work to bring dumb and divided to the present day. And though if they have any prolonged success, it may lead to the beginning (or the middle, or the beginning of the end) of the end, I also better understand why, when met with disagreeable difficulty, these seekers of simplicity might sit down in the middle of the grocery store aisle and throw a tantrum. If I close my eyes and clench my little fists in my ears and scream at the top of my lungs, then I won't see you and I won't hear you and I won't have to think about believing you.

This explanation does not make the insistence any more reasonable, but it does provide some basis for understanding. So perhaps the answer, as with any child, is patient, kindly forbearance and firm, constructive correction.

The question then becomes, will the correction take hold in time, or will the yearning for Again provide just enough resistance to make our efforts toward survival too little, too late?