hopelesshappiness.com

This week I learned that "[Puerto Rico] is an island surrounded by water. Big water. Ocean water."

Now that we have defined "island" and disparagingly identified the specific size and body type of water surrounding Puerto Rico, perhaps we can move on to how and/or why the islanders allowed themselves to be surrounded by fatty brine. It sounds like my heart. And I can say from experience that my heart was ambushed. I thought it was surrounded by light and filled with goodness, but No! Unbeknownst to me, this sneaky fat crept up in the night, and under the cover of fried chicken and gravy marshaled resources until... BOOM! A surprise attack.

I should have known better. Puerto Ricans should have known better. Perhaps we can just transport them all here to our country based on our goodness and light. But No! Our goodness and light has been overtaken by fried chicken and gravy.

Speaking for myself, I have drastically reduced the fatty intake and I am working diligently on bringing back the goodness and light. It may take many, many years to recover from previous excess, but my odds are right now very good that I will have many, many years to recover my former self.

As for our country...
...well
...we like fried chicken and gravy.

And as for Puerto Rico...
...well
..."This is an island surrounded by water. Big water. Ocean water."

Lightning strikes! A branch severed. Suddenly, dramatically, what appeared to be whole, is not. Yet I still see a tree, and a branch. Is it the suddenness that detracts from its essence? Or is its essence truly and irretrievably lost? The tree is still a tree; the branch a branch. Yes, the branch will decay and eventually, seemingly disappear. But despite the loss, the tree can heal, and from there continue to grow.

I am the tree and I am the branch. I have felt whole and I have felt lightning. I have continued to grow and I have (on momentary occasion) felt complete. I have been cut off and I have disappeared. In a few extreme moments, I have been the healing power and, sadly, I have also been the lightning. One day I will begin to decay.

Yes, it is the shock of feeling torn apart, or the savagery of tearing apart, or the utter dismay in witnessing a dramatic dispossession, that creates (what I believe is) an illusion of irretrievable loss. In most cases, this illusion passes. It passes because I am eventually able to acknowledge that though circumstance has changed and though I have changed, (even as lightning) I am not less human for it. And I am able to acknowledge a Humanity with healing power, and my continued potential for growth. This sounds obvious; but it is good to hear.

Lightning scars. Tears of anger are a reminder of loneliness; and loneliness demands inaction-that-leads-to-isolation. Tears of anger are in fact tears of submissive resignation.

Sadness heals. Tears of sorrow are a reminder of possibility; and possibility demands action-that-leads-to-joy. Tears of sorrow are in fact tears of simmering joy.

I believe a tree, despite catastrophic loss, maintains its essence. Beyond separation, a connection will continue.

I believe a severed branch maintains its essence. Beyond decay, a resonance will continue.

Any branch, once attached to a tree, will enduringly reverberate from the deepest roots to the newest, tiniest outstretched buds. A harmonic oscillation that will play on the senses. Perhaps ascribed and powerful. Perhaps subtle and gentle. Nonetheless, forever.

On occasion, I am the lightning.

Through sadness, I strive to be the healer.

Once and always, I am the tree...
...and I am the branch.

With the tangible resources and the abstraction of wealth currently available in this world, when I see someone in trouble, my first question should be, "How can I help?" If the answer I receive is within my means, my second question should be, "And if I help, what then?" If the "what then" requires additional assistance that is also within my means, I should ask the second question multiple times; and if each successive "what then" is within my means or requires no additional assistance, I should perform a compassionate cost-benefit analysis and act upon it. If any "what then" requires additional assistance outside of my means, I should verbally note this inability, and together we should explore alternatives (for both assistance and options), and then continue asking, "What then?"

This process sounds complex; and it can be. For many, this process sounds unrealistic; but that should be determined by the "within my means" qualifier, and not automatically assumed. For many, it is easier to let another individual, (or the system), take care of the problem, believing "it is not my place;" and in some circumstance, this may be valid, but should be argued. For most, this process is intimidating because it requires sincerity without destructive emotion; and it is difficult to face this fear with reasoned composure.

Considering all these factors, I believe the list below is a fair representation of my options for responding, (whether they ask or not), to someone who is in trouble:

• I can choose to be oblivious to all or selected difficulties and/or individuals; especially those that do not noticeably impact me in this moment.
• I can acknowledge selected difficulties and/or individuals, and do nothing. After all, "What can I do?"
• I can judge, blaming the individual for the difficulty, and do nothing. "It's their problem."
• I can blame bad luck, circumstance, and/or the system for the difficulty, and do nothing.
• I can judge, blame, and exert control, thus keeping the individual in their place.
• (As much as it is within my means), I can throw money (or minimally invasive effort) at the difficulty (and/or the individual), and hope that it (and/or they) will go away.
• I can ask the individual, "How can I help?" and if it is within my means, comply.
• I can empathize and exert control, thus kindly keeping the individual in their place.
• I can prioritize individuals and ask "how can I help?" and follow up with "what then" until...
• I can focus on larger-scale circumstance and system, asking myself and others, "What must we do?" and follow up with political and ethical ("what then") discourse that may result in progress or may result in divisiveness, and may or may not reach a cost-benefit analysis followed (or not) by action and short-term progress.
• I can continue to individually work within the system, by asking myself "how can I help?" and "what then?" and follow up with analyses of costs and benefits, leading to productive action and short-term progress, and repeat until... well... Forever.*

As a community, or society, or nation, we typically choose a response that involves control and divisiveness. The same is frequently true for an employer, often true for a parent, and almost always true for an involved ego with power / money.

(If I substitute "another individual" or "other individuals" for "the individual" in the bullets above), these options for response also apply to mutual problems.

In my mind, this creates a sameness between another individual in trouble and mutual difficulty.

Even if you disagree that another individual's problem is your problem, consider what might happen if you treated it as such.

I understand that I cannot be all things to all people, but I can strive to be (conditional upon personal means), and continuously work to improve on prioritization. By doing so, most importantly, I will move away from judgement, blame, and ego, and move toward empathy, compassion, and resolution.

When I make a mistake or find myself in trouble, I most definitely have empathy and compassion, and I typically, immediately, start working toward resolution. The only difference between my trouble and your trouble is, you're not me; but from your perspective of your trouble, you are me. This should not be difficult to understand.

In my mind, this creates a sameness between your sense of me and my sense of me.

In my mind, this creates a sameness between your trouble and my trouble.

In my mind, this creates a sameness between you and me.

With the tangible resources and the abstraction of wealth currently available in this world, when I see someone in trouble, my first question should be, "How can I help?"... ...

*(NOTE ON FOREVER: In this world, I believe my Forever is finite; and on our current trajectory, I also believe Humanity's Forever is finite. We may extend Forever if or when those with wealth and power recognize that survival is contingent upon a drastic deconstruction and reconstruction of our system. [See this suggestion.] If this epiphany does not come soon, we may discover that Forever has become Too Late.)

Definitely not for (1) who I know. And not for (2) my powers of persuasion. Not even for (3) who I am; or for (3a) who I am not. But for (4) what I can do. And for (5) how I can add personal learning and growth for (5a) the sake of process improvement.

Unfortunately, criteria for choosing one for praise and recognition, and/or to award an opportunity for greater influence in a potentially productive regard, is typically weighted to favor #1, #2, and/or #3. Of course those who are actively seeking praise and recognition, often help this process along by working harder within #1, #2, and #3.

Yes, this is a rehash of the adage, "It's not what you know, it's who you know." And as long as this remains accepted wisdom, those who focus on #4 and #5 will become more and more discouraged, and may ultimately fade away; leaving what? A culture of pretty?

I want to argue.

I believe effort spent on networking, persuasion, and/or looking pretty, could be better spent on #4 and #5.

Specifically regarding (2) persuasion: there are those who enjoy, (and even feed off of), my struggles to seduce; and there are those who, (because of my deficiencies in #1 and/or #3), don't even want to bother. For those that want to (feed), I don't want to (overstimulate); and for those that don't want to (move past #3), I don't want to (wheedle). Essentially, I don't want to; but it is difficult to stumble across unaffected individuals, with power, who, (when looking to choose-recognize-award), live within the parameters of #4 and #5.

Specifically regarding (1) who I know: a network is defined as "an association of individuals having a common interest." I am naturally drawn to those with common interest. This instinct works against diversity and inclusion, meaning the individuals within the network must consciously work harder to accomplish diversity and inclusion, meaning the individuals within a network are consciously identifying those who are different as different, meaning those individuals who are different must work even harder to gain unadulterated entrance into (sometimes even the outer circle of) many networks, meaning that (as stated) I will have a more naturally affinity toward those like me and I will more likely think of those like me as pretty.

Specifically regarding (3) who I am: Those with power in a desired network will define pretty, which then may become who I am. If those who choose-recognize-award in a desired network pay some attention to #4 and #5, then (depending upon the degree of focus) #4 and #5 may mitigate the power of pretty, but I have had considerable recent difficulty in finding a network that willingly works to obliviate the power of pretty. Who I am, through the eyes of another---(just as who another is, through my eyes)---will always lack depth.

Of late, I have observed and I have felt that (to a large degree) it all comes to pretty. "Who I know" equates to being perceived as pretty by someone with power, and this advantage is furthered by talking pretty and by looking pretty. Yes, standards of pretty may vary, but since pretty is NOW and because pretty is pretty, how much consideration goes to FUTURE productivity and learning and growth and improvement?

Did you know that there are numerous highly-respected institutions of higher learning now offering degrees, majors, and areas of concentration in Social Media? Granted, many of these fall under a larger umbrella of Marketing, but nonetheless I have to ask how many individuals are using this knowledge to genuinely connect (and help others to connect), and how many are using it to look pretty. I find it amazing that today I can major in pretty, which can equate to a degree in getting a job; not adding expertise or value to an organization, just getting a job by looking pretty. Then I can leverage that job, (and what I learned in the process of getting that job), to get a better job.

And on and on...

On this trajectory, perhaps one day it will be possible to become President of the United States, having no qualifications other than the ability to convince enough people to vote for you...

No; that could never happen...

I am still arguing.

I have been posting weekly written thought for over six years now, and in this context some might argue that the posted content constitutes social media and an effort to persuade. I maintain that "social" requires interaction, and looking back, there is no interaction. So who am I persuading? For those who want to argue that I am working to persuade or convince myself, I ask, "of what?" I am more uncertain and skeptical now than when I began, though I suppose I have convinced myself of how little I know. It is apparent that no one perceives me as pretty; I don't talk pretty; and I don't look pretty; (unless you consider mean and surly, attractive). Yet I feel I have added a depth of personal learning and growth that would not have been possible otherwise. I am living in #4 and (especially) in #5, yet my improvement is not helping me to be chosen. Granted, I do not actively seek recognition, but my successful efforts toward process improvement have also NOT resulted in personal circumstantial improvement.

So must I spend some effort on #1, #2, and #3?

I don't want to.

I would much rather those with the power to choose-recognize-award, look beyond pretty, and into the depths of difficulty surrounding objective subjectivity. To cognitively measure non-cognitive factors and apply them to projected productivity and improvement, can be like judging a beauty contest blindfolded; but it does not have to be. By choosing important over urgent, the blindfold is loosened. To consistently follow through with important, the blindfold may transform into x-ray glasses, exposing (at least a glimpse of) the potential for future productivity and learning and growth and improvement, by allowing at least a glimpse of another individual's essence.

Urgent requires expediency. Expediency demands propriety. Propriety encourages conformity. Conformity manufactures simplicity. Simplicity promotes pretty. Pretty perpetuates pretty. Pretty is urgent.

Important requires analysis. Analysis demands creativity. Creativity encourages skepticism. Skepticism manufactures uncertainty. Uncertainty promotes thoughtfulness. Thoughtfulness perpetuates thoughtfulness. Thoughtfulness is important.

My essence will not be found in #1, #2, or #3; yet I believe that is where most people look because that is where most people are seen. My essence is more likely to be seen dashing about in #4 and #5; yet rarely do I feel observed in #4 or #5. I also believe that one's presence, or lack of presence, in #4 and/or #5 more accurately reflects one's essence than does the pageantry of #1, #2, or #3.

My personal learning and growth results in daily productive influence. I have a positive impact. And I do not believe I am, at all, under-appreciated. But because I am not pretty, and because I am not adept at pageantry, I am frequently under-utilized, and I am currently under-employed.

"Things are working out well... ...As tough as this was, it's been a wonderful thing. I think even for the country to watch and for the world to watch." (Speaking from Houston, after Hurricane Harvey.)

"Have a good time, everybody!" (Decreed upon departure from a Houston shelter, after Hurricane Harvey.)

"I'm not going to rule out a military option." (Who knows? Perhaps when he was angry with the Senate over healthcare.)

These are only recent examples of a dystopian disconnect; meaning, he believes the illusion and cannot fathom why anyone would not believe. The illusion of course, is a Perfect Society. An illusion fed by masquerading fear. And how could it be anything but? To sense fear is to project fear in an everlasting echo of primal understanding and action; unthinking, instinctive, and destructive. Yet to touch that fear, is to be perceived as weak. So what he believes, what we believe, is that our projection is our illusion, and that our illusion is (or should be) mutual. The actuality is that one's illusion is personal, and that one's projection (of fear) is reciprocal. Yet still, one's actions are guided by one's illusion, and one's reactions are guided by another's fear.

I believe all things divisive, (be it nationalism, sexism, politicism, racism, or any other form of supremacism), originate from an illusory perspective of potential perfection, that when allowed to germinate, and left unchecked, will grow into a dystopian future of fear and oppression. (We only have to look at multiple historical examples of past circumstance that did exactly that). The illusion we are currently being asked to buy into though, is beyond an issue of supremacy. The illusion currently being offered up flows deeper than a mere paradigm shift. The majority of us who are moving toward global compassion are not simply being asked to apply different standards; we are being asked to digress and regress. We are being asked to give in and give up. We are being asked to play and pretend. We are being asked to sit back and enjoy the show.

"John Chrysostom, archbishop of Constantinople at the turn of the fourth century, urged that the liturgy should be more exciting, complaining that it was difficult for Christians to compete with the theatricality of the synagogue where drums, lyres, harps and other musical instruments made for entertainment during worship; as did actors and dancers brought in to enliven proceedings." (From The Silk Roads: A New History of the World; by Peter Frankopan.)

I believe that any individual or group believing entertainment is necessary, is likely NOT presenting reality, but rather an illusion. I believe we (too often) choose the diversions of entertainment over the effort required for reality. I believe the schism yesterday was illusion vs. illusion. I believe the schism today is yesterday's illusion vs. tomorrow's reality; or more aptly put, supremacy vs. survival.

I admit, entertainment is more entertaining than drudgery. And I admit, battles for short term supremacy are far more entertaining than the struggle for long term survival. And here we have exposed yet another entanglement. Beyond the shift from supremacy-conflict-illusion-entertainment to survival-compassion-reality-effort (and currently back again), we are facing a dimensional dilemma demanding a consensus on short term vs. long term. Examples:

• Despite how it may feel in this moment, 4 years is very, very, very... short term.
• Entertainment is short term.
• Dominance and control is short term.
• The advantages and disadvantages of global communication have been short term.
• Perceptions of reality are short term.
• The survival of our planet has been long term.
• Fear is long term.
• Reality is long term.
• With a recognition of long term reality and a concerted global effort and some interstellar luck, the survival of Humanity will be long term.

Yet many of us frequently place a priority on entertainment. Global communication has shifted emphasis from individual and local survival to individual notoriety.? Today we want to watch and we want to be watched. I believe we have (very) recently begun efforts to shift emphasis again; from individual and in-group notoriety to global survival. Yes; for the short term we have taken a step backwards. The drama and chaos and controversy "...it's been a wonderful thing. I think even for the country to watch and for the world to watch."

But after we get over this crumpbacked blip, we must get back to work. We must choose global compassion and an opportunity for long term survival.

If instead, we continue to opt for entertainment...

...well

"Have a good time everybody!"