hopelesshappiness.com

"The primitive simplicity of their minds renders them a more easy prey to a big lie than to a small one, for they themselves often tell little lies but would be ashamed to tell a big one."
--Adolf Hitler on winning the support of the German people. Mein Kampf, 1925

Almost 100 years later, it is good that we are no longer subject to being preyed upon due to our simplicity as a society, state, nation, culture, species, or otherwise-organized group of individuals.

In the Winter of 1941, with the Germans at their doorstep threatening to overrun Moscow, Stalin planned and pulled off a daring feat of showmanship: a full-scale military parade in Red Square. This stunt at this critical time acheived sensational results, inspiring such patriotic nationalism as to aid in pushing citizens and soldiers beyond the brink of normal human endurance in order to stand against the advancing force.

Nationalistic pride in a time of war with actual barbarians at the gate... Yes.

Nationalistic pride today, with facts that contradict a bombastic and divisive exaggeration of barbarians... Questionable at best.

"We build too many walls and not enough bridges."
--Isaac Newton

"There are no constraints on the human mind, no walls around the human spirit, no barriers to our progress except those we ourselves erect."
--Ronald Reagan

"When we begin to build walls of prejudice, hatred, pride, and self indulgence around ourselves, we are more surely imprisoned than any prisoner behind concrete walls and iron bars.
--Mother Angelica

If we build a wall, are we on the inside looking out? Or are we on the outside looking in?

"Today I am at the head of the strongest Army in the world, the most gigantic Air Force and of a proud Navy. Behind and around me stands the Party with which I became great and which has become great through me..."
--Adolf Hitler, as part of his speech declaring war on the United States, December 11, 1941. It was also in this month of December that his troops, mere miles from Moscow, were being pushed back, never to come closer to Moscow or Victory again - the beginning of the end.

Big Lies - Big Parades - Big Walls - Big Declarations - Hubris.

In that winter of 1941, Stalin was eventually able to move past his hubris by listening to his intelligence sources on the ground, enabling him to call for Siberian reinforcements which helped to turn the tide. It was at approximately this same time that Hitler, surrounded by yes-men, and believing in his destiny and invincibility, and having no actual front-line intelligence that reached him, followed his hubris and declared war on the United States, further solidifying the beginning of the end.

The Greek word for what typically follows hubris, is "peripeteia" - meaning a dramatic reversal of fortune.

In this Winter of 2017 in very different circumstance, 76 years after one leader, (suffering from hubris and a lack of intelligence), began a slow spiral into collapse and infamy, we are again presented with hubris on the world stage; we are again forced to patiently wait for peripeteia.

Upon reviewing last week's post, it appears that I came to the conclusion that we have artificially enhanced trust with bureaucracy. I suggested a shift in focus from ego-dependence in the moment to interdependent effort for the future. In other words I question the wisdom of trusting (my own and other's) egos today, and I encourage personal learning and growth that trusts future individuals to advance today's learning and growth. So by shifting focus away from this moment, I am mitigating my need to be justified and my desire for power, because it is more difficult for my ego to interact with, much less clash with, a faceless future ego. And if we are able to shift focus in this manner, on a large scale, perhaps the seemingly urgent necessity of bureaucracy will begin to fade.

I want to ask, how can I ensure that my personal learning and growth today will advance learning and growth tomorrow? But in asking this question, I believe I am misinterpreting the concept of trust. Trust, by definition, implies a belief or faith not based on proof. So the answer to the question is, I can never be certain that my personal learning and growth will aid in the advancement of future learning and growth. But I believe I can be reasonably certain that personal learning and growth is more likely to aid in the advancement of future learning and growth than is personal quiescence and stagnation. In addition to the intuitive obviousness of action over inaction, if I don't resolutely add to my personal learning and growth, regardless of its ultimate value, who am I to trust anyone, today or in the future, to put forth any amount of benevolent, humane effort.

So from this, I believe we can work back to one's need to trust others in this moment. Last week I presented some broad strokes that illustrate how it is from fear, (specifically fear of a) violence, b) loss of control, c) conspiracy, and d) injustice), that we have constructed laws to enhance trust. I accept the need for protecting individuals from physical or mental harm. Beyond that, I believe our overabundant complexity of statutory and ordained edicts have led us astray regarding trust. Because I trust another does not allow me to cry "Foul!" if/when I am mistreated or disappointed. I am the one who chose to trust. Trust is not a guarantee. By definition, trust is a leap of faith. If I have misjudged, the failure to span the breadth of the abyss is my failure. Provided the void is not so deep that I fall forever, I feel I have no choice but to (eventually) pick myself up and move on; again, knowing, with reasonable certainty, that the failure was mine.

Though enlightening, this realization is not permission for me to simply watch, (be it with amusement, disdain, or apathy), as others leap and fall, failing to reach the fringe of my topography. Typically, those who place their trust in me, do so upon my encouragement. And yes, in some circumstance, they have misjudged and fail, and I can do nothing but watch; compassionately. But if I have encouraged another to make that leap, and I do not work to extend solid ground suitable for a safe landing; or if I do not at the least extend a hand to lessen their leap, then it is also my failure. With that said, some individuals may come to expect an always-available safe landing spot, choose to make their way back across the cleft, and never encourage another to leap safely to their Terra Firma. In some circumstance, though difficult, learning and growth may be best advanced via failure.

This uncertain back and forth is why 1) I must learn to recognize my failure, efficiently pick myself up, and move on; and 2) I must refocus to extend redirected and additional effort leaping toward future faceless individuals who cannot disappoint, hurt feelings, or waste reciprocal time and effort slashing or stroking egos.

"Trust is not a guarantee. By definition, trust is a leap of faith. If I have misjudged, the failure to span the breadth of the abyss is my failure."

"Hope is a slighter, tougher thing even than trust, he thought, pacing his room as the soundless, vague lightning flashed overhead. In a good season one trusts life; in a bad season one only hopes. But they are of the same essence: they are the mind's indispensable relationship with other minds, with the world, and with time. Without trust, a man lives, but not a human life; without hope, he dies. When there is no relationship, where hands do not touch, emotion atrophies in void, and intelligence goes sterile and obsessed. Between men the only link left is that of owner to slave, or murderer to victim.

Laws are made against the impulse a people most fears in itself... (347)

...They were afraid to kill and afraid to die, and called their fear Reverence for Life." (382)

The above is from Ursula K. LeGuin's "City of Illusions" taken from the Library of America edition "Hainish Novels and Stories, Volume One."

So...
If Law is "enforceable rules of order," then the mere thought of this delicate construct affirms first and foremost that we fear chaos. In chaos, there is uncertainty; and our fear of uncertainty has led us to create an overabundant complexity of legal strands addressing a large majority of our individual impulse control issues. We can untangle some of this with a few broad strokes.

1. Crimes against a person show that we fear violence.
2. Crimes against a property show that we fear losing control.
3. Crimes that aid in the completion of other crimes show that we fear conspiracy.
4. Crimes against rules show that we fear for our safety, we fear unfairness, and we fear bad/immoral people.

According to my interpretation of the quoted passage above, all of these fears have aided in creating all of these laws to nurture relationships; which leads to Trust and Hope, which in turn provides possibility for a meaningful Human Life. I am not sure I completely agree; I need to explore. My first (and second and third) time thinking this through, I hopped over relationships. It is important that minds touch; not only other minds, but also other connections, all connections, personal temporal possibility, and all temporal possibility. It is important that hands touch; not only other hands, but also personal contributions, universal contributions, tangible productivity, and tangible possibility. I suppose if laws are the strands of fear, then Trust and Hope are the threads of relationships "with other minds, with the world, and with time." From fear, to laws, to relationships, to trust, to an occasional retreat into hope.

I do not believe that the quantity or complexity of our laws is necessary, though I understand the seeming necessity of the broad strokes. And because I question bureaucracy, I could easily turn this into a forum on the evils of over-legislation; but I will not. Instead I want to focus on the individual struggle to avoid violent and/or nonviolent subservience to an individual, a group of individuals, and/or a system. I too often want to focus on the wall I am beating my head against, thus losing sight of my bruised and bloodied head. When I am able to refocus, I find that I typically make greater progress scaling, tunneling beneath, or circumnavigating the wall; and lacking dynamite, these are better choices.

In the aforementioned story, the protagonist is struggling with his own identity in determining which of two paths to follow; and at the same time he has challenged himself to not be fooled by either a) others who have been fooled or b) Liars. Ultimately he determines that by choosing not to trust, he perpetuates the lie, whether the lie is intentional or not. One without trust must be carried forward by short bursts of hope. I believe that the protagonist has discovered his "bursts" will eventually burn out, requiring either delusion and the end of his meaningful Human Life (living out his remainder as slave or victim), or the actual, physical end of his life. This is harsh; but knowing this brings him closer to Truth.

I trust, I learn, I decide to stay (and trust again) or move on. These are moment-by-moment decisions. I (actively) hope in short bursts between decision and new (or renewed) trust. Hope-burst stamina is limited.

Does this mean I am forced to choose to trust in someone who, (or something that), has yet to earn that trust? I don't believe so. Instead I can choose to trust in my personal learning and growth. Instead I can choose to trust in universal skepticism. Instead I can choose to trust my contributions in this moment to a future that will continue to exponentially learn and grow. Instead I can choose to trust in those with whom I still share a mutual trust, and continue working to find new circumstance (that will replace a recent loss of circumstance), in which trust will come.

I am fortunate to have lifelong relationships that do add meaning through mutual trust. The loss of circumstance mentioned above is a result of being fooled, (I want to believe), unintentionally. Regardless of intent, I was also fortunate to be able to move on, with little more harm than a few physical discomforts. Many are unable to stand on principle, and some of these (may feel they have no choice but to) resort to delusion (possibly as an unwitting victim). This is sad.

But back to my need to explore. In my meandering thought, it appears I have drawn a straight line from fear to trust. Am I truly unable to live a meaningful Life with no trust? Or am I more genuine by recognizing this artificial construct as being built on a foundation of fears, denouncing its insincerity, and trusting in future learning and growth instead of momentary relationships? Wow! This feels like an epiphany. A future "good season" is more important than today's ego. An epiphany? ...this is sad.

I began this blog in September, 2011. I have been writing weekly, (and on occasion, weakly), since. Prior to this exercise, in 2010, I self-published a book called "Burgeoning Whatnot: A Father's Monologue To His Adult Children." Below are the first 2+ paragraphs from its Introduction.

"It is with no small amount of trepidation that I enter the final stages of manuscript preparation, and ready myself to hand this book to you. Perfectly capturing my anxieties, the following sentences from Carol Shield's 1995 Pulitzer Prize winning "The Stone Diaries" caught my attention: "This 'work of art' is about to become one of those comical, tasteless presents, like the ceramic lobster platter and the atrocious bisque wall plaque, which are consigned, and quickly, to the basement or garage, and which eventually become the subject of private family jokes or anecdotes. No matter. It has been executed with love..." (pp 114-15). As evidenced in your hands, I believe the trailing sentences to have greater import than the initial thought.

I encourage you to read (or not read) this book of 'thoughts as poems' in any way that your spirit moves you. You will find (with a few exceptions) my comments at the end of each poem. You will also find two groupings of consecutive poems; one 'On Baseball' and one 'On Writing'. In addition you will see an assortment of 'Nuggets' or untitled short works scattered throughout. Generally speaking and inclusive of the aforementioned, each piece of Whatnot stands on its own. As you read, I strongly encourage you to (remember your teenage years and) rebel. Sever familial entanglements as best as you can, so that you may disagree, apply your own interpretations, and think things through to a deeper level than what I present. Words communicate ineffectively, yet can be a catalyst to unspoken thoughts and quiet reflection which will more readily lead you to more meaningful truths.

This book is moved by Loving-Kindness, filled with Compassion, shared with Joy, beat into shape with Persistence, and grounded in Structure..."

There is a certain melancholy surrounding this reminiscence, as I believe there frequently is when one looks back at a personal effort that does not meet personal expectations. Yet, for me, that is an apt and relevant description of every effort, no matter how small or large, made throughout my life. If I am completely satisfied with an outcome, I am recognizing only a portion of its meaningful impact. There will always be a portion relegated to a couple of boxes out in the garage.

With that said, I would do nothing different in this regard. This past 10+ years of studying and thinking and writing have been most edifying. I am now working on a change that may, in the near future, redirect some effort; but I can foresee nothing that will break this habit.

I often encourage one to not live in the past, yet this week many personal thoughts have been drawn in that direction. I also say to myself, at least once daily, "having learned from the past, I will live in the moment, for the future." Perhaps instead of "having learned" I should say "still learning" as a reminder to, on occasion, purposefully look back to remember, (and to possibly add a greater depth to), previous learning. This week I was drawn to one Sonnet in particular, from Burgeoning Whatnot:

A water nymph astride her studded crest
As briny jewels collide and reappear
We catch a modest glimpse of surf-sprayed breast
Thus quashing gauche attempts to conquer fear
A laugh that lifts above the pounding waves
A music for and of the centuries
A queen attended by her knights and knaves
A grace that can defy Earth's gravities
She dances with the Sun and flirts with Zeus
She floats through time undone and plunders breath
No plot to tantalize or to seduce
Yet in her wake love dies a happy death
Her ghostly silhouette we watch from shore
Her sunset pirouette, and then no more

As best as I can remember, and based on my comments at the time, I believe this began as a sensual dreamy ode to the Ocean; but was quickly associated with Perfection and its transcendent elusiveness. Today, I need to be reminded that despite its inaccessible indifference, the chase is not only worthwhile, but also necessary.

At the age of fifty-something, I am working to redefine myself (more truthfully), and (in a sense) begin again. It is not an easy task; but worthwhile, and (I believe) necessary.

I understand. I am in my moment and my moment requires applicable thought and action. You are in your moment and your moment requires applicable thought and action. And though we share this moment, it is also two completely separate moments. We both recognize the relevance of 17:18:51 CST, 01/08/2018, and sitting here together we both observe the same circumstance in this moment, yet we are equally distanced from the next moment. I believe that it is not our respective interpretations of this moment that divide this moment, but rather our differing interpretations of the next moment. Having said this, it now appears obvious. I cannot, (nor can you), apply thought and action to a future moment; though it is exactly this effort that divides us. I can make a plan for future moments, as can you, but until the moment arrives, I can only plan. Which begs the question: if I spend this moment agonizing over a plan for future moments, what has become of this moment? Is it lost? Or have I truly spent it in the best possible way? How much agonizing is necessary? Is the degree of agonizing directly proportional to the perfection of some future moment? Or is there some point where it becomes disproportional?

To aid in thinking this through, some added specificity:

1. In some circumstance in which the attainment of a perfect future moment, (or even a good, adequate, or preferable future moment), requires the cooperation of another (or other) individual(s), I believe the amount of agonizing should be determined by the liklihood of productive agreement; which in turn should be determined by the degree of accordant personal influence, general life experience, specifically relevant circumstantial experience, and experience specifically relevant to the other individual(s). Rationally, I do not believe that perceived significance that is emotionally charged should factor into a determination of self-inflicted anguish, for the obvious reason that emotion will artificially inflate the perceived significance.
2. Recently, in more than one circumstance, I have mistaken delay for cooperation. In hindsight I realize that I enabled this flawed thinking because I so badly wanted to believe that the previously-agreed-upon outcome would come about. I also understand that though the shared desire for the outcome was sincere, I was misled regarding its feasibility. Most recently there has been sincerity, but in past circumstance I have been lied to in order to delay and/or sabotage the current moment. On occasion, (likely more frequently than we want to admit), one is pulled into a whirlpool of quiescent planning; a whirlpool that is buoyant and effervescent, more like a thrill ride than the drowning that it, in reality, is. An example would be a promised promotion.
3. I recently made a decision for myself that strongly emphasized The.Moment with less concern for The.Future.Moment. The.Future.Moment, (now that it has become The.Moment), has proven to be a challenge. Did I make the wrong decision? Should I have agonized further, thus delaying a decision? How frequently does delaying a decision for fear of a Future.Moment, effectively result in no decision? And does maintaining the status quo in this manner, ultimately create a quiescence that encourages the status quo? For me I believe it better to act in an effort toward progress and take on the risk of an unknown Future.Moment, than to give in or give up in This.Moment. For me, because The.Moment precedes The.Future.Moment, The.Moment should take precedence; (as long as reason has tempered emotion - see #5 below).
4. When working with one or more individuals toward productive agreement, it will aid in the negotiation to agree upon a frame of reference regarding The.Future.Moment. For example, if together we are working toward a perfect (or preferable) future moment regarding a specific (agreed-upon) circumstance, and if I am working toward that future moment thinking ahead to next week, and you are thinking ahead to next August, we have further subdivided this planning moment into an unworkable melee of discordant future moments that will never mesh. I experienced this disconnect this week: I was looking to resolve the next few days, whereas another was thinking months ahead. It is easy to skip steps in the process, thus creating a planning nightmare.
5. For this example, two definitions: a) Reaction - an emotional response discharged as thought, words, and/or action: b) Planning - a rational thought process, considering the past, the present, and the future, utilized to predict outcomes and determine a course of action. Planning is necessary, if for no other reason than to temper emotion. To simply react can have some limited value based on its truthfulness, but must be immediately followed with planning, thus making the reaction part of the plan. To simply react and walk away, with no follow-up planning, is not only inconsiderate and reckless, but also potentially dangerous. Truthfulness must be productive.
6. It appears to be human nature to want to assign responsibility, not only for a moment that is troublesome, but also for a moment that is good. Blame and credit are an encumbrance to mutually beneficial progress. Even when I blame myself, or pat myself on the back, one part of my psyche is delaying rational planning and/or action. Having learned from the past, I live in the moment, for the future. This is a very difficult concept to live. My mind wants to live in the past, present, and future simultaneously, and my ego wants to comfort me with excuses, which in turn bogs me down. I have found the best way around this challenge is to continue moving forward, physically. I find that when I am physically active, my mind typically follows.

Takeaways so far:

• Though we are in the same moment, our individual perceptions of a future moment may drastically color the present moment, potentially creating discord.
• Self-inflicted anguish may be required, to a point; that point to be determined by productive agreement.
• The entire spectrum, from synergistic cooperation to dysfunctional divisiveness, is a group exercise; I must take my share of the responsibility.
• Within reason, this moment is primary; a future moment is secondary.
• When working cooperatively with another (or others), be sure to agree upon a target future moment.
• Emotionally charged truthfulness should be tempered by reason and should aspire to productivity.
• Past moments as rational planning tools can be helpful: but past moments fused with emotion are not productive.

Upon review, this week's thought feels like I have simply organized for clarification. I don't immediately see a greater depth of thought or new thought. That's okay. To sort through past, present, and future moments in order to make the best possible decisions and not get bogged down in the enormity of the task, requires the occasional uncluttering and selective disposal of nonproductive moments.