hopelesshappiness.com

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.

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...