hopelesshappiness.com

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.

42% of 4% own 46%. That is an inordinately high concentration of something. So based on this scenario, in a given set of 10,000 individuals spread evenly over 100 square miles, and with 10,000 shares to divide between the 10,000 individuals, 168 individuals living within the same 4 square mile plot of land own 4,600 shares, while every other 4 square mile plot of land averages only 225 shares each. That is an inordinately high concentration of something.

If these shares radiate some form of Goodness, the fact of the unbalanced concentration is very sad. If these shares are nonproductive, painfully destructive or otherwise stultifying, the fact of the unbalanced concentration is alarming. If those who hold these shares see them as positive and a majority of all others agree that they are positive, the fact of the unbalanced concentration becomes a fact of unbalanced power. If those who hold these shares see them as positive and a majority of all others believe them to be negative, the fact of the unbalanced concentration may become a terrifying fact of unbalanced power.

Yet this is the way of the world. In the above scenario, even living in the most bountiful 4 square mile plot of land, it is a powerful minority that owns (or controls) the specific resource; and in the remaining 96% of the land, one must poll 8,178 individuals just to find shares equaling those of the 168 individuals in the land of plenty, and then (to be credible) one must convince these widespread individuals to marshal resources. In our plot of land we may claim to believe in a democracy in which all citizens are equal, but in what kind of fair and just world does 8,178 = 168? And this "powerful minority predicament" often feels true-to-life regardless of one's thoughts on the positive or negative characteristics and/or potential of a given bounty. The reality of the majority of individual circumstance is that it is frequently very sad, alarming, unjust, and/or potentially terrifying. Any other interpretation is delusional.

For me, this scenario provides an accurate visual of how a minority maintains power. If the resource, for example, is financial wealth, those who have are more likely to gain while those on the other side of the widening gap are more likely to remain. Regardless of how mightily the (financially) wealthy may profess their love of democracy and equality, I see no effort to level the playing field; the 168 remain powerful and the ranks of the 8,178 continue to swell, making it more and more difficult to marshal resources.

Though I believe financial wealth is the most obvious, and perhaps the most unjust, of potential minority power, there are a plenitude of other resources from which a small number of individuals are able to hold sway over greater numbers. Consider political office; or, (on a smaller scale), your boss at work; or a rule-making bureaucrat at the bank or insurance company; or your healthcare provider. Consider an actual resource such as oil; or water; or food; or, (again on a smaller scale), a specific food such as romaine lettuce; or a collectible such as Babe Ruth baseball cards. Consider a plentiful resource (that is controlled by a minority by choice), such as rugged, beat-up pickup trucks; or Subarus; or loud mufflers; or "Baby on Board" signs; or racist tattoos; or college degrees; or MAGA caps; or "World Peace" bumper stickers; or civilian firearms.

The United States comprises 4% of the world population. Americans own 46% of the 857 million civilian firearms in the world. Only 42% of the households in the United States report owning firearms. That is an inordinately high concentration.

Yet this is the way of the world.

Pomp and Circumstance:

"An ostentatious display of ceremonial grandeur."

"Histrionics, blatancy, fuss, ostentation, formality, bravado, bravura, showmanship, grandiosity, flamboyance, boastfulness, dramatics, flourish, flashiness, splendor, parade, swaggar, splashiness, garishness, dash, opulence, gaudiness, pomposity, pomp, flagrancy, pageantry, showiness, affectedness, grandiloquence, shamelessness, jauntiness, sensationalism, snazziness, exhibitionism, ornateness, vanity, rakishness."

The definitions above are (respectively) from www.phrases.org.uk and www.synonymfor.com. The quoted definition below, (with some liberties) is from www.dictionary.com.

Magic:

"Allurement, augury, bewitchment, conjury, enchantment, fascination, illusion, magnetism, power, sleight of hand, sorcery, sortilege, trickery, artifice, deceit, distraction, duplicity, pretense, treachery."

Superficial:

Lacking depth; lacking substance; lacking follow-through; ignorant; frivolous; out of touch with reality; cheap.

Cheap Magic:

Pomp and Circumstance.

The relevant irrelevance above, (though irrelevant), is relevant to today's newsmakers and their headlines. Our leaders today apear to care more for news-grabbing action than they do for carefully considered progress. We need more think and less do. We need more verbalogistic conversation and less rapid-fire verbowellistic horseshit.

These last few weeks I have had less time to think because I have had more to do. It has shown in my written thought. I believe thinking is at least as important as doing and maybe, (depending upon the circumstance), somewhat more important. I also believe that there must be some balance. Looking around, it appears we have lost our balance. There are some days in which this loss of balance feels less like an unsteady, slightly drunken stagger and more like out-of-control merry-go-round-inducing vertiginous bouts of eye-popping nausea. However, I would contend that we have always suffered splashy, showy, shameless tyrants, but it is only of late that some of the worst of these pompous know-it-alls have risen (temporarily) to greater heights thus gaining a (temporary) modicum of legitimacy.

As further evidence for my contention that tyrannical showmanship is fairly commonplace, today, sitting in a coffee shop, I was subjected to a nearby young woman's blatherings about the (self) important influence she is exercising at a new job, while (for an hour) her table mate barely spoke. Today I was subjected to a large garish pickup truck with very loud mufflers accelarating unneccesarily for a period of 5 to 7 seconds and 10 to 20 yards. Today I blatantly boasted to a colleague; I won't say about what, because that would only compound the bravado. These are all minor and relatively harmless histrionics; but examples of dramatic swaggar, nonetheless.

I believe, (though my wandering words profess otherwise), that there is a connective thread. It begins with choice of action as described below.

Level 1 Action: Pomp and Circumstance.

Level 2 Action: preceded by verbalogistic conversation and resulting in beneficial productivity.

I believe "verbalogistic" (though not a word) is self explanatory.

In these last few weeks, I have found that in "less-think-more-do" mode some Pomp and Circumstance is unavoidable; and I have (re)discovered that I enjoy some amount of flourish. But, ostentatious ceremony is nowhere near the same zip code as reality. Reality is (at best) relatively unexciting and (at worst) involves pain, whereas flamboyant grandeur is an anesthetic upper. I understand the allure but I believe---(I very, very strongly believe)---that a sense of reality is far, far more important than the sense of entitlement that often encourages and then reinforces Level 1 Action.

This week circumstance has begun to settle and I am working to resituate thinking and doing back into a more advantageous balance; (at least advantageous in terms of verbalogistic reality). And if I take nothing more from this week's written thought than this concept of verbalogistics, I am much better off than before.

When an elderly and/or ailing family member comes to a point, we put them in an assisted living facility or a nursing home. When an elderly and/or ailing pet comes to a point, we put them to sleep.

No, I am not suggesting euthanasia for the elderly. Nor am I planning to open an elder care home for pets; (though there are a few in existence). I believe what I am noting this week is that in some families once a member is put in a long-term specialized-care facility, the family's perspective is similar to a pet owner who has made the decision to put an animal to sleep. We suddenly see the ailing elder, (human or animal), as transitioning beyond daily relevance.

There is an intense sadness that surrounds and permeates this process of dying. Death brings closure and, with memories, softens the edges of sadness. But dying is hard. I wonder, (and one day I will come closer to an answer), if dying is easier on the loved one than it is on those that love. Perhaps it is different for each individual.

I can look at my dog and say with confidence that, for him, dying is harder than what death will be. And maybe here is the difference between humans and animals. Humans know enough to fear the unknown. Death is an unknown. No matter living and dying declarations, I believe that for Humans there is and will always be some uncertainty in those final moments. My dog is just going to sleep.

I believe it is important for people to help one another through the process of dying which by default includes the countenance of death. I also believe it is important for people to help their pets through the process of dying, but any consideration of death is selfish and (for the animal) unnecessary. I do not believe my dog is concerned with what is coming. Dying is hard. Death does not have to be. My dog is just going to sleep.

... ... ... ... ...

Yesterday my dog went to sleep. So many emotions... Some people would remind me that he is a dog; and I used to be one of those that did not understand the need to grieve so fiercely for an animal. Elvyn is the only dog I have ever had, and after 14 years of sharing, I now understand. There is a line in a Leonard Cohen song:

"Everybody got this broken feeling
Like their father or their dog just died"

Yes, he is a dog; and he is one of the best friends I have ever had. Yesterday he went to sleep. I miss him.