hopelesshappiness.com

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?

Pig-Baby bespeaks your debut
Wee head in pig hood all askew
Each morning, a plea
Stop looking at me!"
Now he can start looking at you

Pig-Baby bespeaks your debut
Wee head in pig hood all askew
Both frightening and dumb
Wants you for his Mum
So he can look down upon you

Pig-Baby bespeaks ballyhoo
Wee head in pig hood all askew
I'll build my damn wall
To hell with the all
I'd rather take care of the few

Pig-Baby bespeaks not a clue
Wee head in pig hood all askew
It's the past that he blames
For the Now that he frames
As a yearning for myths to be true

Pig-Baby bespeaks barbecue
Wee head in pig hood all askew
Wee head recommends
Pulled pork and burnt ends
And bacon-wrapped sausage times two

Pig-Baby bespeaks peekaboo
Wee head in pig hood all askew
He may seem comatose
But he's watching you close
So he can report back on you

Pig-Baby bespeaks deja vu
Wee head in pig hood all askew
His little pig eyes
His truths that are lies
You find you don't know what you knew

Pig-Baby bespeaks Pikachu
Wee head in pig hood all askew
Reality blurred
A fiction absurd
That's sustained by me and by you

Pig-Baby bespeaks black and blue
Wee head in pig hood all askew
Bacon-sausage-pig fat
I get bruises from that
Blood thinners will bring that on you

Pig-Baby bespeaks Waterloo
Wee head in pig hood all askew
To go back to again
Is to be where you've been
According to your deja vu

Make America Great Again!

This week I am working to examine the possible "Agains" in American history that many of us appear to want to relive.

First though, how are we defining Again? Is it a specific period of time? For example, a particular year? Or decade? Or is it more of a vague general golden age misremembered as nostalgia? Is it from our lifetime? Or is it the glory days of our grandparents' misremembered nostalgia, misremembered by us through their embroidered stories? I don't feel like this hearkening to yesteryore---(made-up word?)---goes beyond recently remembered lifetimes, but perhaps it should. Perhaps the Good Old Days get Gooder as they get Older. And perhaps our nostalgic yearning is merely a reflection of one's desire for youth and longevity and/or one's frustrated attempts to find meaning and purpose. Perhaps as we get older we become more afraid and perhaps this nostalgic denial of the future is one's way of defying death. Regardless, I want to look at the logic of Again.

I have struggled for some days on how to examine "Again" and have decided that I would like to look at some broad categories that impact comfort and well-being separately, to come away with an unweighted scorecard of sorts, and then step back to consider the factors as a whole. I will begin with some measurements that are obviously relevant to this discussion - those having to do with...

...Life and Death
Life expectancy is a bit misleading. It is logical, and sounds obvious, to say, "the longer one lives, the longer one is expected to live," but when you examine that statement there is more to it than "Duh!" As an example, (according to infoplease.com), in 1850, at birth, all white males had an average life expectancy of 38.3 years; but if a white male lived to the age of 10, the average age at death jumps to 58 years. In the year 2000, the gap closes and the years increase dramatically, and those numbers, (respectively), become 74.8 and 75.4. (Life expectancy for women is greater, and all numbers across the spectrum of categories reflect similarly.) A large contributing factor, according to the National Center for Health Statistics, is that our infant mortality has decreased from more than 100 deaths (per 1,000 live births) in 1920 to less than 10 in 2000; that is a tenfold decrease in infant deaths. Thanks to improved health care more of us are living longer. So life expectancy does not mean that in 1850 everyone died before the age of 40 and today everyone lives to be 75. Regardless, based on the facts, if given a choice, I would take my chances today.

Looking at these numbers over time, it took us 50 years (from 1850) to gain ten years in life expectancy, another 20+ years to gain another ten years, another 40 years or so to gain the next ten years, and close to 50 again to reach this last ten year increase in life expectancy bringing us to today. Going the other direction, from 1500 to approximately 1800 it appears that life expectancy held steady at around 30 years, and maybe trended downward to as low as 20 years in ancient Greek and Roman times, with the likely leading cause of death throughout all of history (before about 1950) being infectious diseases. Today mortality from all causes (per 100,000 people) has declined 54% since 1900; which speaks directly to our overall comfort and well-being. It should be noted here that though worldwide life expectancy continues to increase, (according to multiple sources) for three years in a row life expectancy in the United States has decreased; the first such three year trend since 1915 - 1918 which included a world war and a flu pandemic. Regardless, if the goal of life is to live, I believe we are currently living in the golden age.

Keeping score: so far we have two votes for Today from life expectancy and mortality.

Technology
From fire and tools to big data and big brother we may have jumped into the frying pan, but we need continued advancement to solve problems that very recent advancement has created. It sounds pleasant to hop in our time machine, (being built by Russia and paid for by Mexico), and travel back to a simpler 1950's lifestyle, but if we did that we would likely create similar problems or worse because someone with an ego would be in charge thus making it likely that mistakes would again multiply. So if technology is not allowed to vote for tomorrow, if our time machine can only travel backwards, then the 1950's (or maybe the 1980's, as best as I can misremember these two decades and their stories), might get the nod; but that would not be a long term solution. Technology would prefer our existing planetary time machine to continue on our current plodding path to the future, but as an opposite act of defiance, (to balance our current disregard for the future), Technology will cast its vote for Tomorrow.

Scorecard: Today 2 - Tomorrow 1.

Crime
From available statistics for centuries past, murder rates have decreased from estimates upwards of 60+ per 100,000 in 13th century Europe to less than 7 today worldwide. In the United States since 1700, rates of violent crime have steadily decreased with murder rates currently trending below 5. In the 1950's we saw rates as low as 4, increasing through the 60's and 70's, peaking in 1980 at around 10, and again in the early 90's at nearly 10, and decreasing again since then to today’s rates approaching those of the 1950's.

War and Terrorism
According to ourworldindata.org "it would be wrong to believe that the past was peaceful. One reason why some people might have this impression is that many of the past conflicts feature less prominently in our memories, they are simply forgotten." (Additional support for my emphasis above on "misremembered" histories.)

Throughout recorded history it appears that battle deaths have maintained a consistent 5 to 10 per 100,000 per year, excepting major conflicts such as the Thirty Years' War, the Napoleonic Wars, or the World Wars of the twentieth century. In the past 70+ years, since World War II, this number has dwindled to less than one, approaching zero. As reported on vox.com, some experts believe we are in a long peace that will continue as long as we "maintain the trends of the world we live in, including growing international trade, strengthening of international institutions like the UN, and strong diplomatic ties between democratic states." Other experts believe we are merely in a gap between major conflicts and that it is too soon to assume it will continue. The "Long Peace" proponents point to the steady declines in all violence over centuries to support their belief. The "Let's Wait and See" naysayers discount other factors apparently believing that the volatility inherent in emotional nationalistic disagreement is such that cool heads are less likely to prevail; and based on recent years, they may be right. In this regard, "Again" may be 2014, which for all intents and purposes is still Today, and Tomorrow (in this moment today) is too full of uncertainty.

There is much discussion on the difference between war and terrorism, but (for me) terrorism implies widespread fear within civilian populations that they, (the civilians), are subject to intentional targeted violence, (as opposed to incidental violence). Keeping this differentiation in mind, consider the following:

• Many people, (and in some countries, most people), believe that accepting foreign immigrants increases the likelihood of terrorism. Yet statistics continue to show that most acts of terrorism are carried out by citizens in their own country.
• According to the Cato Institute it is 65 times more likely I will be killed in an animal attack than in an attack by a foreign-born terrorist; and the odds of me dying in an animal attack are 1 in 1,600,000. Granted, these statistics are since the 9/11 attacks, but if I include those, I am almost 800 times more likely to be killed by lightning than I am to be killed by an illegal immigrant terrorist.

Who is more guilty of terrorism? The guilty-by-association foreign-born immigrant, (legal or illegal)? Or the fear-mongering politician with an agenda? Who contrives more fear? Who is more scary? Who is to blame? You do the math. When I do the math, the answer I can’t shake is, I am to blame; and by association, we are to blame.

Scorecard: Based on the presentation above, Violence casts two votes for Today extending its lead over Tomorrow to 4 to 1.

Wealth
Poverty continues to decrease. Enough said.

Income inequality and the wealth gap continue to increase. Enough said.

These "enough said" factors are a mixed bag. We are no longer starving but we are hungrier than ever before. Wealth or proximity to wealth is necessary for any pretense of power. Many of us satisfy our hunger for significance through our proximity to the wealth of an employer. Personally and individually more and more of us are self-identifying through our work because more and more of us are becoming less and less significant as individuals. This may sound harsh, but if you factor in the creep of big data, it also rings true.

An unfortunate side effect of power is certainty, and as the individually powerful become fewer their certainty becomes entrenched and emboldened. Perhaps this is the new reality. But to go back to a magical "Again" would increase poverty and, (just as with Technology), someone with an ego would still be in charge. The question becomes, will this current trend strip away some of the trappings of ego by showing us that our only common ground is the common ground of exclusion, perhaps carrying us to a more equitable tomorrow? Or will we continue to be sheep and allow our selves to be herded to a more difficult future?

Tentatively, and with much trepidation, Wealth cautiously casts its vote for Tomorrow.

Scorecard: Today 4 - Tomorrow 2

Opportunity
Some of the above facts on War and Terrorism were presented in such a way to support the premise that nationalism encourages unnecessary divisiveness and smothers opportunity. In recent generations, opportunity was presented to many children, (at least in the United States), as "you can grow up to do anything and be anything you set your mind to." First, that isn't working out so well for a majority of us native ammurricanns, and second, why don't we practice what we preach? Is the fact of a different nationality really a valid reason for unnecessary injustice? But even in the 50's and 60's when we appeared to have a more brotherly outlook globally, we weren't doing such a great job domestically. And before 1950? Forget about it... We have always excelled at injustice of varying sorts.

Regardless, opportunity points to the fact that, despite a step backward here and there, we have made steady progress through the centuries. We must continue. Opportunity adamantly casts its vote for Tomorrow!

Scorecard: Today 4 - Tomorrow 3.

Final Tally
Our Russian-built, Mexican-sponsored time machine can only go backwards, so by default, Tomorrow is Today. And according to these raw scores, Today is our best chance to realistically make America Great, because we are not only not there, from where I sit, we have never been there.

According to the facts, Today leading to Tomorrow wins by a landslide.

According to the facts, "Again" is a vague, undefined hope (i.e. delusion).

According to reality, (from where I sit) we are defying insignificance and death because we are afraid.

Reason votes for Today.

Fear votes for Again.

Today, emotion trumps reason.

Today, Fear is winning.

This has been a very busy week and I am making excuses but it looks like I am on a stream of consciousness parade of words with some thoughts thrown in but mostly I guess more of a stream of subconsciousness or perhaps a stream of unthought but hopefully not a stream of unconsciousness unless of course I am in a Matrix in which case I guess it really doesn't matter but then I think (or unthink or subconsh) that perhaps conshing doesn't matter either except in regards to conshing which is a made up word for a concept that to me for right now means asserting my superiority over beings I am superior to which if this is indeed conshing it is not very meanigful even though it is all about meaning and what does that say about my pitiful efforts to assert meaning where there is none except for that meaning which is meaningful of which there is some because otherwise what drives me to continue to assert unless that might just be emotion which does not make me in any way superior so that's not possible but then neither is time travel unless there is no such thing as time beyond the meaning that I give it to make it meaningful which brings us right back to conshing and the potentially devastating unthought that this is all made up and even if I'm not in a Matrix of a more powerful someone else's doing perhaps I am in a Matrix of my own doing but as long as I don't know this with certainty I can continue to consh along oblivious to the facts that show me most definitively unsuperior but also show me most definitively equally as necessary or equally as unnecessary but I choose to believe necessary not only because it is consensus opinion (the necessary part not necessarily the equal part) but also because I believe in conshing be it straight sub or un so for example this morning I got up with a runny nose and a cough and I could have stayed home to feel sorry for my more superior self but instead I got up and walked to work because I have found that to fight through adversity makes me feel even more superior but I tell myself that to work hard and add productivity is more meaningful than quiescent self-pity and while this appears logical maybe it is just justification for the extent I must go to feel superior which means it is just conshing or false meaning which is sad which is okay because sadness more than any other emotion reminds me that I am human and connects me to other equally as necessary humans because regardless of whether or not it is just conshing, superiority through hard work has got to pay off in some small way and if we could all find our superiority through hard work maybe it would pay off in a bigger way like survival and a world that we can be proud to leave for our kids and their kids and their kids and their kids and their kids and their kids and their great-great-great-great-great-grandkids and on and on until maybe the dinosaurs come back which just came out of nowhere if you want to call the place where my unthought originates nowhere but perhaps there is some validity in believing that technology could produce a world in which we could bring back nature but not the Jurassic Park apocalyptic kind of nature but one in which the dinosaurs smile and I could shake hands with that one with the really little hands and that would be very cool but I want to be clear that I am actually talking about the dinosaur and not referring to a general sense of old people with small hands nor any specific old person with small hands as I just realized that you may believe I am saying something I am not and so as not to belabor the point about no hidden agenda I will go back to sadness which is such an important driver and at least for me a next door neighbor and close friend to compassion and a roommate to humility though even these kind and gentle sounding drivers are probably just more ways to feel superior but I would rather ride on the backs of humilty and compassion as they are led by sadness to a generous and giving superior workplace than to ride on the backs of fear and hate as they are being led by anger to a distant place of a superior us throwing rocks at an inferior them though I do occasionally take anger out for a spin I always try to park it back in its reserved spot and take the long walk winding up and down hills and through the alleys and streets back to my neighborhood with sadness and humility and compassion and Gosh! I sure would like to shake hands with that dinosaur with the really little hands. Bye.