Impertinent Happiness

As much as I disagree with many aspects of the system, it has been brought to my attention that it is the system driven by a market economy, (interdependently with science, technology, and globalization), that is responsible for much of the advancement in individual well-being we have seen in the past two centuries. As illustrated by the facts of improved health, increased average lifespan, declining violence, fewer individuals living in extreme poverty, and an exponential growth in both individual and collective knowledge; and despite contradictory accounts from doomsayers and fearmongers; the well-being of Humanity has improved. I'm not here (this week) to argue that point. All doomsayers and fearmongers, please exit now. This week I want to better understand the working parts of our market driven economy as they relate to my sense of well being.

If the goal of Humanity, (both individually and collectively), is to battle disorder in an effort to not only survive but also to feel empowered and purposeful, then the system has indeed aided in this effort. And it is difficult to argue against the concept of entropy as the ultimate villain. This week the system has boosted personal satisfaction. This week I saw my highest credit score I have seen in more than five years. This week I have managed to sell a car, come to terms on a new home rental, secure a car loan, secure a line of credit, and purchase a new car. All very orderly; and empowering. This week I feel in control. This week I feel in charge. Why is this different than a week in which contact with bureaucracy is at a minimum. Why is this different than the week I lost a job and saw my credit score begin a downward spiral? Why is this different than the week I had a heart attack and discovered I was fat? Or the other week, (only five years later), when I had another heart attack and, (though no longer fat), discovered I was mortal? The answer to these questions may appear to be obvious---(bad things vs. good)---but in many cases, bad things are beyond one's control and simply a matter of odds that dictate a certain liklihood of disorder. So if there are indeed "so many more ways of being disorderly than of being orderly," (as stated by Steven Pinker in his newest book Enlightenment Now), then why do I feel responsible and/or feel a need to assign responsibility / blame for bad things? Instead, I should be working to understand possible causes leading up to the "bad thing" so I may change future actions and behaviors, and let go of those elements beyond my influence.

Looked at in this way, striving for order should not be so compelling that it encourages blame and slows progress. Additionally, striving for order should not be so compelling that it results in unnecessary complexity; complexity often implemented by power working to cement personal security.

Regardless, the system has eliminated the threat of debtors prison. The system has provided better access to better health care, and based on its trajectory, it will continue to improve. The system, (with some small hiccups), has provided incentive for decreasing violence on both large and small scale. The system provides opportunity for an individual to correct past mistakes.

Regardless, the system needs improvement. The system provides a (sometimes) crushing stigma for those with low credit scores. The system has created a superweb of health care inefficiencies. The system often encourages divisiveness regarding political leanings that impact multiple areas, including, (and perhaps most devastatingly), the potential for small and large scale violence. The system provides ample opportunity for an individual to make mistakes. And the system strongly discourages individual disagreement with the system.

Regardless, the system is responsible for much of the advancement in individual well-being we have seen in the past two centuries.

Much of the written thought above was thought and written early in the week. On Friday I was reminded that I am not in control. A planned c section and carefully orchestrated travel plans were derailed by a grandbaby seeking an early exit. A minor annoyance well worthwhile for a healthy daughter and granddaughter; and they are (thankfully) healthy. With Moxie and a degree of impertinence, my beautiful new granddaughter has given me an opportunity to reorder disorder.

So I understand that a system (by definition) creates order and imbues a sense of calm necessary for maintaining order. What I must work to break free from is the frustration inherent in clamor and chaos. Reminders such as this week's written thought are helpful, but this week I am thinking and writing in the midst of a relatively calm and empowering set of circumstance.

I just realized that all of this thought may simply be a reiteration of the popular sweatshirt slogan, Keep Calm and Carry On. Or perhaps it is a reminder to differentiate between calm indifference resulting in quiescence and stagnation, and calm transformation resulting in ordered progress. Though I believe this thought has, (in varying ways), been presented before, I like the reinforcement.

So what about the "market driven" portion of our system? Does it add to, or detract from, progress? I believe, depending on circumstance, it can do both. I believe there must be some competition to reward advancing order. I believe that our current system, (though it has moved us forward, and it is continuing to contribute), includes some misaligned components: specifically money and power. I believe the playing field must be leveled. I believe that "this previous written thought" could provide a starting point.

So perhaps this week I have simply reordered and reinforced, with little new thought. Regardless, with some Moxie and impertinence, perhaps I can encourage new action, resulting in ordered progress.

Posted in Philosophy | Leave a comment

Happiness Imprisoned

To Whine: bellyache, carp, complain, cry, drone, fuss, gripe, grouse, grumble, howl, kick, mewl, moan, murmur, pule, repine, snivel, sob, wail, whimper, yowl...

...typically from annoyance, aggravation, agitation, bother, difficulty, discontent, displeasure, fretfulness, harassment, restlessness, trouble, uneasiness, unhappiness, vexation, worry.

To Disagree: clash, conflict, contend, contest, contradict, counter, debate, deviate, differ dispute, dissent, diverge, object, oppose...

...typically from annoyance, aggravation, agitation, bother, difficulty, discontent, displeasure, fretfulness, harassment, restlessness, trouble, uneasiness, unhappiness, vexation, worry.

If power is defined as anyone with influence, then to disagree with no complaint to power, (or with no complaint until after the fact), is to whine.

I would like to believe that to disagree is to create possibilities: a possibility for justice; a possibility for progress; a possibility for learning; a possibility for shared understanding.

But...

Power often mistakes disagreement for whining.

The overwhelming apathy from the population at large often colors disagreement as whining.

Indecision, personal apathy, uncertainty, conformity, and other personal insecurities encourage disagreement to remain imprisoned as whining.

And to whine is to not be heard.

I will take my chances.

I will continue to disagree.

Posted in Philosophy | Leave a comment

Rapid-Fire Happiness

RAT-

Despite recent assurances to the contrary, nearly six months have elapsed since a gunman, using a bump stock, killed 58 people and injured 851 in about 10 minutes. The ATF has previously determined, (under Bush, Obama, and Trump), that because the "device does not initiate an automatic firing cycle by a single function of the trigger, it is NOT a machine gun." It appears that it requires pressure applied from behind and pulling the trigger to fire 90 rounds per minute, and to maintain its status as NOT a machine gun. I understand that, (looking for new sources of revenue), a bump stock manufacturer has been testing a new product on donald trump's phone, enabling rapid-fire tweets that are also justifiable based on pressure felt from behind.

A-TAT-

The indignation this week over "sham" elections is a bit hypocritical coming from a nation in which two presidents (in less than 20 years) took office having received less than 50% of all the individual votes counted.

TAT-

The more I learn, the more I read, the more I write, the more I discover - the more I am reminded that the only quality in which I have any active hope of pursuing excellence is hard work in the service of good. With enough hard work, perhaps I will on occasion stumble across an insight that may have some slight potential for advancing Humanity. And that "slight potential" is the downside. Because the more I learn, the more I read, the more I write, the more I discover, and the more I work hard in the service of good - the more significant my personal progress impacting the relatively small contributions I offer.

TAT-

There are moments, I wonder: Is the World worth saving? Or more correctly: Is Humanity worth saving?

Because I believe skepticism and uncertainty are critical to progress, I have to question. Because I am a member of Humanity, and, (more importantly), a representative of sentience, and, (even more importantly), a momentary particular of Life, I have to believe that Humanity, Sentience, and Life are worth saving.

For many, the order of importance above intuitively feels upside-down; believing that their rightful place is to preside over lower-level sentience and all non-sentient Life. But why should intellect dominate? How does an arbitrary evolutionary improbability give one the right to step outside of Nature? And, (as is already the case), if one believes that their intellect is greater than another individual's intellect, when does power begin to define this "other" as lower-level sentience?

If anything, We, (all of Humanity, past, present, and future), have had, still have, and always will have a responsibility to maintain and nurture, or at the very least, refrain from wanton disregard.

When I observe unwarranted superiority---(All superiority is unwarranted!)---that leads to wanton disregard, I have to wonder, (on our current trajectory, not if, but) when will Humanity finally succeed in destroying Life, having forgotten that we are but a momentary (and totally dependent) particular within that greater harmony?

BOOM!

Fear is
Reality is
God is
In the Future

Willingness is
Devotion is
Empathy is
Compassion is
Sacrifice is
Resentment is
Hate is
What is Love

Certainty is
Deceit is
Treachery is
Corruption is
Truth is
Not Truthful

Health is
Nature is
To Bloom is
Growth is?
Evolution is
Entropy is
Decay is
Beauty

Experience is
Knowledge is
To Question is
Skepticism is
Uncertainty is
Wisdom

I am
Sensation is
This Moment is
Past Moments are
Interpretation is
Incomplete

I am
Love is
Truth is
Beauty is
Wisdom is
God is
In the Future

Posted in Philosophy | Leave a comment

The Future Reality of Happiness

I sense, and then I interpret; (interpretation is inclusive of any conscious recall).

So...

Is it the momentary, initial glimpse that is real? Or is it the whimsical, wandering interpretation that is real?

If I were to believe that the initial fleeting sensation is reality, then I would believe that there is sensation without interpretation. But, (like the proverbial tree falling in the forest), I believe sensation without interpretation is, (depending on your bent), either tangibly inconsequential and of no discernible value, or nonexistent.

If I were to believe that interpretation dictates reality, then I would logically be forced to choose between my interpretation and ALL other interpretations; (because by choosing just one other interpretation, that interpretation, in essence becomes my interpretation):
1. If I choose ALL other interpretations, I would have to believe (with certainty) all manner of polarizing perspectives.
2. If I choose my interpretation, I would have to believe (with certainty) that I am the supreme judge of ALL things.
But,
1a. Constant divisive disagreement with oneself is personally ineffective, objectively unconvincing, and irrational; and though calculated devil's advocacy may be a circumstantially effective tool, one's Humanity appears to require opinionated systems of belief.
2a. Individual omnipotence is logically impossible; I am not God.

So...

I believe interpretation is necessarily unavoidable and I believe all interpretation nullifies reality; therefore I believe reality does not subsist in the past, and I believe reality is ephemeral, and beyond conscious recognition, in the present. I believe the past is a figment of convenient momentary contrivance. I believe the present is a fleeting fear often followed by a fanciful synthesis. I believe the future is the only sphere in which reality can breathe. Yet, (beside the fact of interpretation), we often choose to strangle reality in its crib; before it can spread roots, sprout wings, or find its God.

When reality is allowed, reality looks to the future for God. Because interpretation nullifies reality by interpreting/suppressing the initial fear, and because the past and the present are interpretive, God cannot be real in this moment and God cannot have had influence in the past. God is only able to breathe, to live, to flourish, in the future.

This is our fear; the fear that we see in that momentary, initial glimpse. The realization that God is not dead; God never was. The realization that God is yet to be, and God will always be beyond our reach.

For me to glimpse God, I must allow reality its freedom. I must nourish the moment so that reality may escape to the future. And to nourish the moment, I must nourish my fear; and then battle whimsy and baseless hope. I must let go of me and search for wonder and reasoned revelation. I must understand that my purpose is of my own making; and, your purpose is of your own making. I must understand that the possibility of eternal life lies in the future, with future generations, and not in an interpretive myth of creation. I must look to that future and have faith that, (in its quest, beyond all notion of me), reality will find God.

Yet we often choose to strangle reality in its crib; before it can spread roots, sprout wings, or find its God.

Posted in Philosophy | Leave a comment

Neighborly Happiness

"The human enterprise has been to dominate Earth and everything on it, while remaining constrained by a swarm of competing nations, organized religions, and other selfish collectivities, most of whom are blind to the common good of the species and planet." [91]
--Edward O. Wilson; "The Origins of Creativity"

I have (rather clumsily) been working to say this for years. Well Put! We are (unnecessarily) tripping over each other with little individual effort to understand the urgency we face. Pay Attention! Read a Book! Become a Stakhonovite! Create Autonomously! Disavow Ego! Reject Membership! Think! Act Thoughtfully! Now!

...Before it's too late.

If I were to work to see myself as my neighbor sees me, and if I were to work to see my neighbor as I see myself, and if I were to work to see my neighbor as any 1 of, (in this moment), 7,458,197,595, then perhaps my ego will be moderated, and perhaps I will be more likely to contribute. (In today's technological world, it is not only conceivable to see any other Human individual as a neighbor, it has become necessary.) And while this 'see myself as my neighbor' proverbalization may sound biblical, not only are there many versions of the golden rule dating back to as many as 2,000 years before christianity, in this New-World version the impetus comes from reasoned, thoughtful consideration of what we know today and is not simply an edict commanding morality that then today is translated into superficial courtesy and political correctness. I believe that most of us are capable of more reasoned, thoughtful consideration. The challenge is to stop tripping over ourselves as selfish individuals in selfish collectives.

I believe that to break free from these outdated convictions and commitments, I must first recognize myself as a selfish individual. I can begin this elucidation by examining the process of selfish disagreement, (assuming relatively equitable foreseeable consequence in terms of potential for harm and/or good). Here goes...

  1. When my personal (i.e. selfish) desires and/or needs conflict with yours, (accounting for the assumption above), it appears that the only rational reason that mine should supersede yours, is because I say so;
  2. And I say so because I am me;
  3. Yet I am me, against OVERWHELMING odds, and because of a complex and random series of events that will never be duplicated;
  4. So there is no logic that dictates that my desires and needs should take precedence over yours;
  5. And if I realize this and you do not, then your desires and needs will more frequently dominate mine;
  6. Because even if we impartially agree (for the sake of analysis) that the total package of one individual's desires and needs (in a given moment or in a lifetime) is assigned a value of 10,
  7. And then we work to make a mutually agreeable decision,
  8. But, by realizing the inanity of the concept of "me" I allow 5 of my 10 for you and keep 5 for myself,
  9. And you, (not realizing the inanity of "me"), keep 8 thus giving me only 2
  10. You win 13 to 7.
  11. Even a generous soul, only keeping 6, will still beat me 11 to 9.
  12. And, to be truthful, even one who understands and agrees with the inanity of "me" will succumb to their personal-individual-me human nature probably more often than not,
  13. If not overtly, then by claiming that they are allowing 5 and 5, but acting in a way that reflects 5.1 to 4.9.
  14. This nod to human nature must not become an excuse---Effort Must Be Made Regardless!

A real world example: two servers in the same restaurant double-book the last piece of cherry pie, and if both you and I absolutely love cherry pie, the only logical reason I should get it instead of you is because I (as me) say so; but by assigning a value to these conflicting desires, the more selfish individual will get the cherry pie.

I believe it is time to outgrow both individual and collective selfishness. But then, who gets the cherry pie? Flip a coin? Or cut it in half? Either option would be preferable to contentious divisiveness. We must consider these and other options in lieu of selfishness...

...Before it's too late.

Posted in Philosophy | Leave a comment