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

Happiness Unguarded

On
Gossamer wing
Aloft, take flight

Your
Restless spirit
Most ev'ry night

A
Weightless release
Vast depth, alight

'til
Shimmery thoughts
Refract your sight

Then
Dappled unease
Betrays your height

And
Temporal heart
Brings back the night

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

With
Wavering steps
Unsure, contrite

An
Unguarded soul
Awaits their night

Posted in Philosophy | Leave a comment

Revolutionary Happiness

"The woman's skin was yellow-brown, like ferrous earth, and hairless, except on the scalp; not shaven, but hairless. The features were strange and childlike, small mouth, low-bridged nose, eyes with long full lids, cheeks and chin rounded, fat-padded. The whole figure was rounded, supple, childlike."

The woman is Ambassador Keng, from Earth. She is on the Planet Urras, located 11 light years from Earth. The time is several centuries into the future. She is speaking to Shevek; an Odonian physicist and an anarchist, from the desert world, Annares. Annares was founded as an Anarchic State, 150 years previous, by revolutionaries who voluntarily left Urras to live on their desert planet free from rule. In the passages below, Ambassador Keng is rationalizing injustice and social inequality.

"Let me tell you how this world seems to me. To me, and to all my fellow Terrans who have seen the planet, Urras is the kindliest, most various, most beautiful of all the inhabited worlds. It is the world that comes as close as any could to Paradise."

"...I know it's full of evils, full of human injustice, greed, folly, waste. But it is also full of good, of beauty, vitality, achievement. It is what a world should be! It is alive, tremendously alive---alive, despite all its evils, with hope."

"...My world, my Earth, is a ruin. A planet spoiled by the human species. We multiplied and gobbled and fought until there was nothing left, and then we died. We controlled neither appetite nor violence; we did not adapt. We destroyed ourselves. But we destroyed the world first. There are no forests left on my Earth. The air is grey, the sky is grey, it is always hot. It is habitable, it is still habitable, but not as this world is. This is a living world, a harmony. Mine is a discord. You Odonians chose a desert; we Terrans made a desert... We survive there, as you do. People are tough! There are nearly a half billion of us now. Once there were nine billion. You can see the old cities still everywhere. The bones and bricks go to dust, but the little pieces of plastic never do---they never adapt either. We failed as a species, as a social species."

"...[we] saved what could be saved, and made a kind of life in the ruins, on Terra, in the only way it could be done: by total centralization. Total control over the use of every acre of land, every scrap of metal, every ounce of fuel. Total rationing, birth control, euthanasia, universal conscription into the labor force. The absolute regimentation of each life toward the goal of racial survival. We had acheived that much, when the Hainish came. They brought us a little more hope. Not very much. We have outlived it. We can only look at this splendid world, this vital society, this Urras, this Paradise, from the outside. We are capable only of admiring it, and maybe envying it a little. Not very much."

"...We forfeited our chance for [Justice and Social Equality] centuries ago, before it ever came into being."

Shevek's response:

"You don't understand what time is. You say the past is gone, the future is not real, there is no change, no hope. You think [Social Equality] is a future that cannot be reached, as your past cannot be changed. So there is nothing but the present, this Urras, the rich, real, stable present, the moment now. And you think that is something that can be possessed! You envy it a little. You think it's something you would like to have. But it is not real, you know. It is not stable, not solid---nothing is. Things change, change. You cannot have anything. And least of all can you have the present, unless you accept with it the past and the future. Not only the past but also the future, not only the future but also the past! Because they are real; only their reality makes the present real. You will not achieve or even understand [beauty and vitality] unless you accept the reality, the enduring reality, of [Justice]. You are right, [Social Equality] is the key. But when you said that, you did not really believe it. You don't believe in [Justice]. You don't believe in me, though I stand with you, in this room, in this moment. My people were right, and I was wrong in this: We cannot come to you. You will not let us. You do not believe in change, in chance, in evolution. You would destroy [a world] rather than admit our reality, rather than admit that there is hope! [Justice] cannot come to you. [Justice] can only wait for you to come to [it]."

"...there is nothing here but States and their weapons, the rich and their lies, and the poor and their misery. There is no way to act rightly, with a clear heart, on Urras. There is nothing you can do that profit does not enter into, and fear of loss, and the wish for power. You cannot say good morning without knowing which of you is 'superior' to the other, or trying to prove it. You cannot act like a brother to other people, you must manipulate them, or command them, or obey them, or trick them. You cannot touch another person, yet they will not leave you alone. There is no freedom. It is a box---Urras is a box, a package, with all the beautiful wrapping of blue sky and meadows and forests and great cities. And you open the box, and what is inside it? A black cellar full of dust, and a dead man. A man whose hand was shot off because he held it out to others."

The quoted passages above are from "The Dispossessed" - a 1974 science fiction novel by Ursula K. LeGuin. (The brackets indicate my interpretation of metaphorical equivalents where the original would lack context.)

This week, after finishing the book, I have come back to these and other passages to further absorb the disquieting prescience, and to explore the idea of Revolution, how it associates with Happiness, and how this may relate to us. The remainder of this week's written thought is this examination and exploration, (including some additional paraphrased interpretation), that may branch beyond this moment's intent.

According to Shevek, "the separation of means and ends is false." According to Shevek, "there is no end." In the larger context of the entire novel, I believe he defines Revolution as the means with no end, or the process that connects the past with the future. To seek mere pleasure or (lower-case) happiness is to come to an end and begin again; it is a circular moment that works within, thereby against, time. To seek Wisdom and Truth and Authenticity, (i.e. upper-case Happiness), is to consider the past and the future and realize there is no end; it is a continuum that works alongside, thereby with, time. Revolution then, works with time and offers an individual the opportunity to work toward Wisdom and Truth and Authenticity. REVOLUTION IS AN INDIVIDUAL ACTION COMPELLED BY INDIVIDUAL THOUGHT. REVOLUTION REQUIRES PAIN. Conformity and bureaucracy and wishful thinking and quiescence are all circular moments.

Revolution is necessary for progress, but Revolution scares the powerful. The powerful prefer to encourage conformity, and to add to bureaucracy, and to energize wishful thinking, and to maintain quiescence; and they call this progress---and we frequently believe them. We believe them because we don't understand the difference between power and expertise; (see PRIVILEGED HAPPINESS 8/5/17 and IMPROVING HAPPINESS 8/26/17). We believe them because we are told to be nice at the expense of truthfulness; (see HAPPINESS FRACTURED 5/7/16). We believe them because "the future is not my concern;" (see HAPPINESS STRANDED 1/27/18 and HAPPINESS STRANDED PART 2 2/3/18). We believe them because we believe subservience is cooperation. We believe them because it is easier. To seek and to find pleasure and (lower-case) happiness is easier today than ever before. Thus, to seek Wisdom and Truth and Authenticity has become more Revolutionary today than ever before; and, (it's worth repeating), Revolution requires individual thought and pain.

In this new age of technological wonders, government is failing us; capitalism has failed us; our social and spiritual leaders have failed us; education is failing us; we are failing us; I am failing us. REVOLUTION IS NECESSARY to rid ourselves of institutions that have outlived their usefulness, and to redirect those stuck in circular moments toward the future to again work alongside time.

In this moment, we are slightly less than 1.6 billion individuals from the 9 billion projected in our (fictional?) dystopian future as presented above. At our current rate, we will reach 9 billion in less than 20 years. I (want to) believe that we have more than two decades of "blue sky and meadows and forests and great cities," but I also believe that if we do not consider Revolution NOW, we will risk our blue sky. Simply put, we will replace the possibility of propitious with the inevitability of bleak.

Posted in Philosophy | Leave a comment