hopelesshappiness.com

This week I read the following quote:

"It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society."
--Jiddu Krisnamurti

So many anxieties and so much unhappiness is not a reflection of personal weakness, but rather a normal, healthy, human reaction to a maladjusted society.

Symptoms of this widespread societal disorder include bureaucracy, consumerism, poverty, discrimination, political divisiveness, cost and complexity of healthcare, cost and complexity of education, rates of incarceration, wealth gap, power gap, affordable housing, financial security, and justice; to name a few. Many of these symptoms overlap, compounding the severity of the injury and the length of the suffering.

It is an interesting perspective. Perhaps I am not depressed or anxious or fearful or unhappy; perhaps I am simply Human. But though it is an interesting perspective, it does not relieve my anxiety. "Yayyy" that I may not be the cause of (some or even most of) my unhappiness; it is a short-lived celebration because I am still unhappy. And because it feels like I have less of a chance to solve society's ills than what I might have to solve my own discrepancies, perhaps I am now more unhappy. It doesn't seem fair that my increased anxiety probably makes all those maladjusted-well-adjusted folks feel even more well-adjusted.

So what can I do? For decades we have been conspiring with big pharmaceutical companies to convince humans they shouldn't be human, and that their problems were biological, (in their head), or a combination of biological and psychological, (in their head and in their head). And in fairness a very small number of anxieties are biological, but the majority are brought about by a maladjusted society as described. But big pharm cannot commercialize a fix for society, so they will continue to perpetuate the myth of broken brains to maintain status quo.

Status quo is not acceptable. But because I am not in a position to fix a broken society, (as I stated last week) I will sow seeds. To sow seeds, I must have seeds to sow. Seeds come from plants and flowers. Plants and flowers have a range of characteristics, many interpreted according to personal taste. I find poison ivy to be distressingly irritating; yet there are those who sow these seeds and nurture the vine. I find the tulip to be elegant and well-formed; yet there are those who cannot see its beauty, truth and wisdom. Granted, poison ivy has a built-in system of defense, whereas the tulip is just inviting someone to pick it, but which one is more secure? Which one is more sincere? Which one is more inspiring?

This analogy nicely illustrates a deeper cause of our disturbed society. We have become a culture of individual egos, afraid to let our guard down, and exhibiting our desire for control by punishing those who get too close. When I think about a bank, or an insurance company, or the cable company, or the social security office, it is not a stretch to visualize poison ivy vines crawling over and around and through and within. I just shuddered imagining a bureaucrat opening their mouth and a vine reaching out, circling my neck, and forcing its way down my throat. I may now have nightmares. Is this acute anxiety? Can I get a prescription?

Perhaps humor is one way to decrease some anxiety, and I do see it as another valuable seed to sow, but it takes time for seeds to take root and grow. This week alone I have heard 4 specific references to doctor visits and individual symptoms potentially related to anxiety and/or depression. This is not uncommon; and the individuals are taking corrective action as they should. There should be no stigma attached. But if these individuals walk away from their doctor visits with only a pill and no education, as a society, we have failed; again.

And Big Pharm Wins! Again.

First and foremost this is for myself AND this is for ALL of Humanity. Secondarily this is for those I Love. And finally this is for those I know and for those I have known and for those I will know. I am the same as ALL of Humanity. I am past, present, and future. I am an abstraction. I am a pointillist landscape, undone; redone. I am uncertain, and I am unknowable. You are concrete and whole; defined and knowable. You are here and now. You are evolving into a future full of promise. You are forever etched. Because I am hazy and indistinct, and because you are coherent and comprehensible, I cannot presume to know for you what I cannot know for myself. Thus I must first consider that which is less focused; less refined. I must first consider myself AND ALL of Humanity. I must first bequeath to myself AND to ALL of Humanity.

So what is "this" that I am so dramatically and magnanimously passing on?

"This" is all of my thoughts; including those I have spoken, those I have written, those I have dreamed, those I have reinterpreted, those I have cherished, those I have loathed, those I have held on to, those I am yet to think, and those I have forgotten.

This is not much; I admit. And, this is everything. This is both ends of a spectrum from insignificance to essence; perhaps a circular spectrum; perhaps a snake eating its own tail. The question then becomes, "will I choose to be the gaping jaws or the vanishing tail?" Regardless of my choice, jaws or tail, (and regardless of my perception in any given moment), I remain both, insignificant and essential. And this is why the undone, redone, abstract, ever-changing, uncertain, unknowable content of all of my thoughts is first and foremost gifted to myself and to ALL of Humanity, and the effort and intent (along with any content you may find useful) is secondarily gifted to you; because it would be unjust and pretentious to presume.

But is it pretentious to bequeath to ALL of Humanity? I believe it is pretentious only if I see myself as knowing and Humanity as unknowing. But I am as disordered as ALL of Humanity. I am as ever-changing as ALL of Humanity. I am as myopic as ALL of Humanity. I am the same as ALL of Humanity. So it is not pretentious; it is a necessary reminder of my insignificance, and my essence.

If you were to say, "I agree with all of your thoughts," I would not believe you. I would respectfully suggest that you are lazy. If you were to say, "I agree with certain thoughts as presented by you," I would remind you that I have bequeathed these thoughts to you. Once considered and processed by you, these are no longer my thoughts. Again, I admit, this is not much.

I will continue to question and think and process and pass along. And then I will question and think and process and pass along. If I am struggling, if I am in pain, if I am comfortable, if I am cheerful, if I am conscious, and sometimes when I am unconscious, I can still question and think and process and pass along first and foremost to myself AND to ALL of Humanity.

Then, and only then, to you...

Will Humanity listen? Yes, in its own way. It is difficult for Humanity to hear an individual voice; as it should be. Just as it is difficult for me to hear a broken heel if my broken ribs are screaming. Just as it is difficult for me to hear my head if my heart differs. Just as it is difficult for me to hear reason if my anger intercedes. And, because it is difficult to hear that faint and distant voice, it is also difficult to hear the whole; I am more likely to feel the predominant rhythms and hear the ascendant arguments and then dance to that driving drumbeat. And finally, whether in the midst of an overpowering syncopation or surrounded by its slowly-dying echoes, it is additionally as difficult to change direction. So, if it is difficult to hear an individual voice, and if it is difficult to hear the whole, and if it is difficult to change direction, I will sow seeds.

To many, this week's thought is unrealistic. And as I just now read it again all the way through, I thought, "this is really dumb." (I bequeath this thought to you.) I also thought, "at best it is far too idealistic." And as it regards personal behavior, it is idealistic. I have opinions and give advice on a very consistent basis. But if you examine that transaction, I am able to do so only because you have allowed us to switch roles. You have become an abstraction representing ALL of Humanity, and I have (momentarily) become concrete and whole. Though still presumptuous, the reality is that I am merely sowing seeds. As I transform back into my hazy, uncertain self, I realize that you are likely not so careless as to adopt the content of my thoughts in its entirety. I trust that you will process and reinterpret. So in this sense, this construct of you and I as presented is realistic in that roles are transferable. And I suppose it is also realistic to trust that I will question and think and process before offering to change roles and express opinions.

This transactional trust is necessary for growth. There is much potential for growth, within a seed. This is why, when I am presented with a fully formed thought, (whether mine or another's), I must pick it apart to find those seeds with potential. To digest a fully formed thought whole, is to suppress, confuse, and sometimes destroy potential. Additionally, to digest a fully formed thought whole causes gastric upset that frequently results in a garbled reinterpretation being spewed all over nearby (and often unappreciative) innocents.

I began this post by saying, "First and foremost this is for myself AND this is for ALL of Humanity." When this thought formed it felt spiky and cumbersome. I was uncertain why, other than it felt smugly overconfident to prioritize otherwise. I believe I have smoothed and polished now to where I better understand this web of you and me and transactional trust. Beyond what I have already said, to maintain integrity within this concept of transactional trust, I should add that first and foremost I must constantly question myself as a representation of ALL of Humanity AND I must never be certain that I am more knowing than you. I believe that what appears to be concrete and knowable in this moment is very likely a driving drumbeat, a dying echo, a spewed thought, and/or a full-blown delusion. I must not presume otherwise...

In this week's study I learned the following:
1) There is no unity of time.
2) There is no flow of time.
3) There is no present.
Below is my understanding / interpretation of these three facts.

1) There is no unity of time.

• There is not one single time. There are a multitude of times; a different time for every point in space.
• Because all measurements are relative, the measurement of time is relative; both to a particularity and to other times.
• Time is measured according to the rhythm of place and particularity.
• One place and particularity is so different from any other one place and particularity that it precludes any possibility of Perfect
synchronization thus creating multiple truths.

There is no unity of time; only segmented partiality.

2) There is no flow of time.

• Order only exists from a particularity.
• To focus on a particularity, one must blur their vision to discount all other particularities.
• Order is imposed, from cause to effect, according to a particular measure of time.
• If all particularities are taken into account, there is only disorder.
• Entropy is defined as the flow of order into disorder.
• Entropy is an irreversible process.
• Entropy is a succession or progression of particular times from a lone preceding particular time.
• Entropy is ordered (resolved) by choosing a resulting particular time and discounting all other resulting particular times.
• Entropy creates the flow of time.
• Order only exists from a particularity.
• Therefore entropy is not (just or strictly) disorder.
• Entropy is the process from which we create a changed order.
• If all particularities are taken into account, there is only disorder.
• Entropy leads to only one particular measure of time that has in turn led to this moment of changed order, thus creating a past, the impression of a present and a future.
• There is not one single changed order; there are a multitude of changed orders.
• Because time feels ordered, reality is distorted. In Truth reality is the disordered state of all particularities.
• Reality dispels the myth of changed order.
• Reality exposes the flow of time as a myopic man-made construct.

There is no flow of time; only random relativity.

3) There is no present

• Each moment in time has its past and its future.
• Each moment in time is separate and NOT a part of any other moment; nor is it a part of any other moment's past or future.
• Because of this distinct separation, there is no common present.
• Even within a place or particularity, one cannot move toward the present.
• Any attempt to measure the present will either expose a particular past or reveal one or more separated moments in time.

There is no present; only a particular past, a particular future, or distinctly separate moments in time.

In the analysis above I consider a particularity to be an event or happening. As I have worked to digest these facts to better understand time, I have discovered a confluence. If I shift definitions to account for Humanity, (without which time could not be considered), and substitute meanings as follows:

Time = an event, or a particular flow of events.
Particularity = an individual human.
Measurement = a human perspective or perception.

then I come away with a greater depth of understanding for the concept of time, AND I come away with a greater depth of understanding for a reality applicable to our human condition. I crave order and control. I want very much to believe that I am working toward a greater good. I want the world to make sense. But if I actively accept the reality as presented above, must I change my perspective and desire? Have I acknowledged a reality from which there is no hope? No escape? Or have I perhaps strengthened my resolve, allowing me to volitionally apply a more focused effort toward a more refined greater good? If there is no unity, and if there is no flow, and if there is no present, and if the past and the future are only my past and only my future, then that feels like freedom. A freedom to forgive myself for past transgressions. A freedom to move past perceived ignorance. A freedom from debilitating distress. A freedom from burdensome ego. A freedom to define myself, without apologizing. A freedom to work toward a future that includes Humanity. A freedom to work toward a vibrant future that includes a vibrant Humanity. It is not though, a freedom to seek a black hole and purposefully cross the event horizon. Nor is it a freedom to attempt to superimpose a particular measure of time upon random space inhabited by other distinct particularities. To believe that "no escape" is freedom, or to believe that one specific particular measure of time is THE Grain of Truth, is to believe that Humanity does not exist; because within a black hole or at a granular level, Humanity would not exist.

Yet I am surrounded by Humanity. And if I define Humanity as encompassing all (past, locally present, and future) human individuals within our human condition (as recognized above), and I emphasize Human Thought as an integral component of this definition / consideration, and if I acknowledge the elusive nature of Human Thought, and if I weave Humanity (and Human Thought) into the mesh of the space-time continuum, then perhaps I have closed some gaps, (filled some holes, connected some dots, added some elasticity), that will account for a (sort-of) sub-Planck space-time-Humanity continuum that revives and reestablishes an interdependence between Time, Particularity and Place, thereby asserting and validating the existence of Humanity.

In other words, Planck time and Planck length are the smallest measurements with any meaning. Sub-Planck length and time cannot be measured. Human Thought cannot be measured. And from my learning this week, our inability to measure sub-Planck length and time further threatens the existence of Humanity. Yet we know Human Thought is an actuality. So, according to my understanding , to believe in Humanity I must account for sub-Planck length and time. And, (in the absence of more advanced science), to account for sub-Planck length and time I must believe in Humanity. And to believe in myself I must believe in Humanity. And to believe in Humanity I must believe in myself.

That feels like freedom...
...with responsibilities.

I understand that I have made a considerable leap: from the granular nature of nothingness, to a fortified continuum of space, time and Humanity. And herein lies a danger. Our presence within this continuum may in actuality be weakening it, and unless Humanity begins to take seriously its stewardship responsibilities, this continuum may revert to a less complex space-time-Life continuum or even a simpler space-time continuum. I believe space and time are probably just fine with the granular nature of nothingness.

I am not.

480 Words.

The festivities had just begun, when...

...they ended.

Week before last I took a test that identified my top 5 strengths, (in order), as Learner, Intellection, Achiever, Input, Responsibility. This particular examination contains 34 strengths. For only $39.99 I can see all 34 strengths in order. My employer paid for the top 5. This week I am questioning if "strength" is an appropriate descriptor for #34. This question causes me to rethink #5, which in turn has caused me to rethink the definition, (as used by this exam), of strengths. Perhaps a strength is only a strength when it is utilized. Perhaps this questionnaire only identifies predilection. Not perhaps. I believe this to be. It is logical that a dormant strength is merely a predisposition to act or react in a certain way. And perhaps this differentiation (between act and react) is the actual measure of a strength based on if it is utilized volitionally, or if it comes to the fore as a response to another's action. In other words, how lazy are those personal proclivities identified by this learning tool as potential aids to living, learning and growth? The answer for me is always, too lazy.

Not only do I believe a dormant strength to be a weakness, but I also believe some strengths / proclivities to be less valuable than others in that some are more frequently less useful than others (at least) partially because some circumstance in which a strength could be utilized occurs less frequently. This is why one is drawn to jobs and other circumstance in which one can utilize their personal strengths. Again, logical. But I also admit that my own personal definition of "useful" plays a major role in determining which strength to utilize in a specific circumstance. For example, when there is disagreement another may find it more useful to seek consensus and avoid conflict whereas I would find it more useful to encourage reasoned conflict in order to consider diverse opinion and perhaps arrive at a more complete resolution. And perhaps this adds another measure of strength: the ability to act volitionally drawing upon a strength that one is naturally averse to using. Following the same example, I am more naturally inclined toward learner, (precisely because learning requires some pain and adversity), than I am to harmony, yet there are some situations where and when I find it best to call on harmony.

It becomes obvious that I must be aware of those strengths / proclivities that I am less inclined toward, and that I must on occasion utilize them. I took a long, close look at all 34 strengths last week and I was able, (without shelling out $39.99), to sort them into top, middle and bottom tiers according to my preference. Doing so accomplished a couple of things. First, it made me realize that tests like this are, to a large extent, simply a celebration of ME. Yayyy ME! Designed to make one feel good about themselves and thereby increase one's productivity, it is a win-win. Secondly, if I am of a mind to, (and since Learner is my #1 proclivity, I am of a mind to), I can more definitively identify those potential strengths more likely to lie dormant as weakness, and by attaining and maintaining this awareness I can work to better understand and utilize these potential strengths in appropriate circumstance.

I realize that there are some potential strengths that I see as less productive and less useful, such as social networking, but I acknowledge that in some (for me, very rare) circumstance, a certain amount of je ne sais quoi and joie de vivre can be advantageous. This is a personal example but it illustrates the best use of tests such as I took: to study and analyze those points between 150 and 210 degrees opposite of ME. In a sense these strengths / proclivities that I see from a distance on the far reaches of my circumference, (because I am averse to them, and in a couple of instances repulsed by them), represent my evil twin, or my doppleganger. Though it is much easier and of course less painful to celebrate me from the comfort of my 50 degree arc, I am going to learn more by discovering what I am not, than what I will ever learn by reaffirming what I am.

So it appears that my personal doppelganger is friendly, cheerful, outgoing, very positive and hopeful, and wants to make a significant difference. This is indeed far from the comfort of me as mean, surly, angry and realistic. When I am friendly and outgoing, people I know say, "okay, who are you and what did you do with that other guy?" But I truly believe that my doppelganger undermines my quiet listening and learning, my productive output, the cohesion and duration of my reasoned study, and the depth of my considered analysis.

With that said, the paragraph above accounts for my top 5 and (probably) my bottom 5. For me it is unfortunate that the proclivities I am least inclined toward are some that are most necessary for functioning socially; and without some ability to function socially, one has a very difficult time in today's world of political and bureaucratic stupidity. (Reminder: my definition of politics is ANY struggle for power and control.) This paragraph may sound harsh, but I am comfortable with harsh.

So, since I must function socially by drawing upon strengths I am averse to, and since I am comfortable with the necessity of painful reality, (within this specific exam) that leaves 24 strengths / proclivities to study, analyze and learn from. And perhaps this is true for most of us whether in the context of an exam or Life circumstance: one knows personal comfort and personal discomfort, which leaves a middle range from which to most advantageously learn and grow. So to learn and grow, I must willingly move toward discomfort. And this is true within my top 5, bottom 5 and middle range; to qualify as a strength, I must push myself with an effort that creates discomfort. Reaction only, is lazy. Celebration is a reaction. This exam has helped me to focus and more efficiently refine my discomfort.