hopelesshappiness.com

On days when things are going well, when I have a little extra money in the bank, when I am relatively and momentarily healthy, when I am energized by an early morning three mile walk, when I am wearing a brand new pair of boxer-briefs, I am lucky. Yayyy Me! What about the guy who just found out he has cancer? Or the young woman with two children who just got evicted? Or the pedestrian run down in the crosswalk? Or his family? Or any one of the countless lonely and confused people found in hospitals and in nursing homes and in detention facilities and in support groups and not in support groups and in line at the DMV and in the office next door. Ohhh. Poor them. But hey! I'm wearing a brand new pair of boxer-briefs. I think the world is okay. They must have made a mistake somewhere along the way, otherwise they'd be okay too. Good thing I have things under control. Good thing I am more deserving. Yayyy me...

So even though everything passes through the filter I call "me" --- objective reason can survive. If I claim objective knowledge, I have established the reality of reason and I am then honor-bound to nurture its promise with coherent skepticism; which in turn solidifies the reality of reason. If I introduce faith or belief or any emotional trigger, I am rejecting the reality of reason by attacking its integrity; (i.e. to exhort belief is to deny reason).

This is not to question the value of subjectivity, but to encourage an acknowledgement of the legitimacy of objective reason. I maintain that we (too) often become emotionally attached to a fundamental idea or concept and neglect the reality of reason by refusing coherent skepticism.

Coherent skepticism does not challenge the reality of the reality of reason, but rather expands and refines the power of reason. To reason is to analyze and consider at progressively higher (or deeper) levels. Thoughtful questioning is required; (as an example, though I said above that "this is not to question the value of subjectivity," one should absolutely question the value of subjectivity; I was merely remarking to maintain focus on the reality of reason).

Based on these arguments, (and despite a common dictionary definition), I maintain that reasoning cannot be used to determine belief. Belief implies a gap and a leap; and reasoning may carry one to the precipice, but it will not provide wings to ensure safe passage. So reason may prod but practically speaking, objective reason will only take one so far and will never provide an ultimate Truth. Hence the necessity of coherent skepticism to continue narrowing the gap. And hence, (because we fear the unknown), the unfounded belief that subjective truth is Truth.

But again, my purpose in this thought is (foremost) to reveal the incisive authenticity of objective reason and, (only secondarily), to expose the superficial duplicity of subjective truth. Many believe and many know. They are exclusive. One cannot do both within a single context. So if knowledge narrows the gap leaving one on firm ground, and belief somehow magically spans the gap leaving one at risk, why would one choose magical thinking over sure footing? The answer of course is fear.

One cannot choose to believe or to not believe a fact. A fact simply is. To dispute or disbelieve the validity of a fact is to deny reason. One who denies reason cannot practice coherent skepticism and cannot reasonably participate in any effort to expand knowledge. Subjective reality can only be bandied about within the confines of subjective reality and, for the sake of understanding and learning, should be; but reason will never be a party to that.

If objective reason is "there" and subjective truth is "here" then the following description from Ursula LeGuin's story, ("Five Ways to Forgiveness: A Man of the People"), is apt.

"There are no gods there. The gods are here. There are souls there. Many, many souls, minds, minds full of knowledge and passion. Living and dead. People who lived on this earth a hundred, a thousand, a hundred thousand years ago. Minds and souls of people from worlds a hundred light years from this one, all of them with their own knowledge, their own history. The world is sacred. The cosmos is sacred. That's not a knowledge I ever had to give up. All I learned, here and there, only increased it. There's nothing that is not sacred. You can choose the local sacredness [here] or the great one [there]. In the end they're the same. But not in the life one lives. To know there is a choice is to have to make the choice: change or stay; river or rock."

There or here.

To be thought inferior...
To be underestimated...
To be scorned and belittled...
Is ugly.

To overcome
Is not to...
Condescend...
Or underestimate...
Or scorn...
Or belittle...
In return.

Nor is it to brave
Perceived
Indifference.

How then?

It is difficult
To elevate regard,
Or esteem,
From beneath
The heel of a boot;
Or even, the sole of a foot.

It is difficult
To respect
The weight of
A thumb.

It is disheartening
To be anonymous
Hidden
Unrecognized
Unknown.

It is ineffective
To insist upon
Or beg for
Guileless consideration.

So, how then?

I can quietly maintain perspective
And elevate myself
I can persistently
Seek excellence
Within myself
And as a consequence
Maybe...
Perhaps...
On occasion...
A magical, musical interdependence
Will
(for a time)
Validate a relationship.

It is all I've got.

Though...
I see a future
In which
Magical musical moments
Will become
More frequent
And longer lasting.

My hope
Must continue
To be active.

Within this striving
And to this moment
I am lucky.

EXPERTS HAVE CONFIRMED! "Very Bad Things Can Happen!" Based on this recent report, Monday morning of this week an entire town nestled in the hills of the Mark Twain National Forest in south-central Missouri stayed in bed. By that afternoon a few brave souls, prompted by pangs of hunger, cautiously made their way to their pantries and cupboards opting for dry and canned goods, afraid to turn on stoves or ovens, and disbelieving the "best by" dates (or lack thereof) on their refrigerated goods. Most adult residents, in fact, have instructed their younger children to unplug all electrical items and/or persuaded their taller children to turn off circuit breakers. By nightfall on that first day, journalists from surrounding communities could hear cries of fearful anguish emanating from darkened homes. Despite facts to the contrary, conventional wisdom has taken hold of this previously idyllic Ozarks community and will not let go. The foreboding despair is most commonly communicated in the oft-heard belief that "the world is going to hell in a handbasket." More individual and specific interpretations involve various catastrophes including war, communism, terrorism, greenhouse gases, meteorites, intelligence, floods, wildfire, pagans, foom, nuclear accidents, minorities, earthquakes, pandemics, progress, sinkholes, a wayward black hole, gamma rays, immigrants, journalists, asteroids, super-volcanoes, immigrant journalists, famine, planes falling from the sky, rational thought, a 400 pound hacker, corrosive rain, alien invasion, solar flares, robot uprising, vampires, Pandora's box, and giant flesh-eating spiders.

Asked for comment on Tuesday, the White House released the following statement:
"Fear. Yes. That's good. Great! And terrific! Tremendous progress!  That's like, really smart. Very bright! Because you know, what with, and if fear were IQ'ed, it would be, well, really scared. But Russia and Fox News; and with the help of the space force, rapists would be really, really scared like the freshmen at Wharton and maybe you could stop hiding. If, like, OK, if like we all hide under our beds, the voters that count wouldn't vote. But fear; it's good, like really smart. Just come out to vote."

Late on Tuesday, the situation worsened when the lone homeless man in town, with no place to hide, changed his sandwich board which had previously read "The End is Near" to "I Told You So."

And then in support, on Wednesday morning, a neighboring community promised to build a wall to completely encircle the fear-stricken town further protecting it from outside evils; provided (of course) that the community-in-crisis pay for said wall. A prototype is being built and admired now.

On Thursday FBI hostage negotiators were on the scene and the National Guard established and maintained a perimeter, which aided the neighboring community to approximate the size of the wall and prepare an invoice. The two lead negotiators though did not accomplish much, spending the morning debating if the people were the hostages or if fear was being held hostage, and if the former, discussing how best to negotiate with fear. They finally agreed that the people were the embodiment of fear, thus fear was in command and neither negotiator wanted to negotiate with the disembodied voice of fear. So they finally settled on the strategy to send in a non-threatening girl scout troop to sell cookies in order to coax the people to their doors and back into the light of day. But these negotiators had obviously never seen the South Park episode in which a girl scout was revealed to be the Loch Ness Monster. The situation worsened.

On Friday, nothing happened; which of course sent the already terrified townspeople into a heightened frenzy of fear because they suddenly and collectively realized their greatest fear: to work and worry and live and die for nothing. Even giant flesh-eating spiders were better than nothing. And no matter how hard the girl scouts and their leaders, (who had taken over for the FBI), worked to convince them that love and compassion and individual purpose and girl scout cookies were not nothing, the panicked citizens were dubious.

Finally, as day broke on Saturday morning, help came from an unexpected source. The homeless man---(Remember the homeless man?)---The homeless man once again had changed his sandwich board and with the aid of a purloined megaphone walked the streets with a message that appealed to both the embodiment of fear and the disembodied voice of fear:

"THERE IS NOTHING TO BE AFRAID OF!"

Upon hearing this, two twelve-year-old twins, a brother and sister, looked at each other and simultaneously thought, then said, "I can live with that." They then led their parents and neighbors and ultimately the entire town back into the light of day. Refrigerators were plugged back in, questionable cheese was consumed, and productivity once again found its place in this charming Missouri town.

This week I am struggling with priorities. I am (possibly) faced with a decision that (whatever I decide) will at the least maintain status quo and may result in betterment; this is a good problem. My initial instinct was to first consider this problem in terms of autonomy and self esteem, but as I think it through, it is a more basic issue of becoming more independent. The difference for me is that independence is simply becoming less dependent, whereas autonomy plays into self esteem via volition and I do not want this decision to be dominated by ego.  So in my attempt to mitigate ego the decision moves from a very strong yes to a more moderate yes.

There are other considerations.

The second consideration is the uncertainty surrounding the reliability of the outside factor I am dependent upon; (that factor being SSDI). Granted, I do not believe the uncertainty to be an immediate consideration, but even within the next one to two years I foresee the possibility growing; and I am reasonably confident that regardless of this uncertain outcome, if I decide yes, I will be in a position from which I am better able to continue to improve the practicalities in the third consideration below. Based on these thoughts, the uncertainty again contributes to a moderate yes.

The third consideration is financial. A "Yes" decision will bring a potential of less income, but would be manageable. But this in turn will bring a new uncertainty (that I suppose we all face every day) of potential improvement vs. maintaining vs. unexpected misfortune. So overall this entwining of less (short term?) income and new uncertainties, if considered alone, leads to a decision of No if the financial gap is significant, a moderate No if the financial gap is less significant, and a neutral to moderate Yes position if the financial gap is nonexistent.

At this point it feels like a very close call.

The fourth consideration involves capability and culpability. As with the first consideration above, I do not want ego to dominate, so in this thought I do not want guilt (perceived culpability) to push me into a Yes, and I do not want to misjudge my ability to work to the required extent. As for capability I believe that in the past 12 to 18 months, a combination of a new consistency and predictably of symptoms, (supported by recent research), coupled with continued improvement on my part to manage symptoms leave me in a (momentary?) position in which I feel capable while acknowledging the newness of this circumstance. In other words, I should not feel guilt for deciding "No" as my symptoms continue to justify dependence, and my full capabilities have not been tested. Yet how will I know until I test them. In theory, SSDI provides a safety net, and if there were no uncertainties about this safety net, these specific (stand-alone) thoughts would result in an ambivalent neutrality, but with the uncertainty I believe these thoughts slide into a moderate No.

I came into this analysis wanting to justify a Yes. Right now, it appears the only way I can do that is if the financial gap is very minor or nonexistent; or if I allow ego to have a say. I have to live with my ego. So does my wife. I will ask for her thoughts.

But first...

I have consistently defined (upper-case) Happiness as one's search for Truth and Wisdom, and (lower-case) happiness as day-to-day cheer and satisfaction. I believe the ego is an integral part of (lower-case) happiness---(Do I deserve happiness?)---and I believe a "Yes" decision would improve my (lower-case) happiness and reinforce my ego-driven sense of entitlement. But how would it impact my (upper-case) Happiness? Would my reading and writing and thinking suffer? Or would I be energized by the consistency of social contact? I don't know. I suppose this consideration is neutral but may be telling me to consider my ego.

I will ask my wife for her thoughts.

I talked to my wife. The conversation has encouraged me to realize that there is a greater fear of the uncertainties surrounding the bird in the bush than there is surrounding the bird in hand. This in turn is telling me to (again) lessen my regard for ego. I am back to a pivot of significant vs. insignificant vs. nonexistent financial gap. We will see what (if anything) comes.

It is time to post, and a choice has not presented itself. But this has given me more opportunity to think. I have discovered that my perplexity is (at least) in part related to my inability to disentangle considerations. In the preceding paragraph I appeared to conclude that the resultant financial gap should be the ultimate determinant. But, (whether I call it "ego" or "self"), my considerations for desired independence, culpability and capability, and (lower-case) happiness will more strongly influence results as they come, so I cannot allow financial well-being alone to make this decision. All of the above considerations do not each carry equal weight, but rather push, pull, intertwine, prop up, and even strangle various other considerations. I cannot objectify this much subjectivity. Based on the big picture of current circumstance, I feel obligated to follow through; meaning that if (in this moment) I feel future resulting circumstance is manageable, regardless of possible difficulties, I must opt to move beyond status quo.

There it is.

We will see what (if anything) comes.