OK, so reading my last post I obviously was hung up on love. I think because it is such a strong emotion, with that ability to create such incredible highs [as well as horrific lows], that got me going. There's obviously a lot more I could write on that area, and perhaps I'll return to it -- for now, I want to look at other areas that bring happiness, and what we do [or don't do] to set up those situations. Other than love, what other emotions or feelings do we seek to bring us happiness? Camaraderie, a sense of accomplishment, a sense of belonging, comfort -- these are some of the areas that I'm thinking of when considering emotional happiness. Loneliness, loss, stress -- these are the feelings that run counter to above and drain the life out of most of us. Having said that, it makes me want to dissect a 'day in the life' to determine which activities we tend to pursue and how that affects our emotional happiness. Remember, my objective in all of this is to delve into a way to live and a means to achieve that life -- in doing so, my hope is to provide a construct that people can start applying to their lives as well [whether that is viable or not as a society will be need to dealt with afterwards, but first things first].
As discussed earlier, in a 24 hour day, a third is spent asleep, so we're really here to examine what is done with the other 16 hours a day. For most of the population, at least half that is spent working. In today's society of commerce, working for a wage is the means by which we provide the basic sustenance of life -- food, shelter, clothing. And yes, this is why I keep returning to work as a part of life -- barring an expedition to the wild and living off the land [less areas of which exist in our ever-crowding world], we have to create something of perceived value to have the ability to purchase our means of existence. It is not an obsession, but a cold reality that our choice of occupation determines the means by which we live. So work is a significant part of how we spend our time -- and this is one key area where most of us fall short in achieving a sense of happiness. Look at my list of positive and negative emotions above -- in your working day, are you leaning more to the positive or negative? If you're like me, you'll find that most of the day is spent dealing with stress and other negative emotions as you try to navigate the day. This can be compounded by the type of work you do as well -- so much of what our society of consumption does not add value; do we really need 38 different types of toothpaste?
So one area of improvement is obviously in occupation; the luckiest -- correct that, the smartest -- of us work in an area that brings them personal satisfaction [art, entertainment, construction, sports, teaching, manufacturing, technology]. For the rest of us, whether we fell into our vocation or worse yet decided to chase the almighty dollar for the dollar's sake, we've found ourselves in a crowded tunnel we cannot get out of.
I believe many of the ills we face now from an economic basis in the US are a direct result of this pursuit of money as the end, rather than the means to an end. Consider in the '80's and '90's -- many of our brightest minds at our top universities were producing specialists in finance and law; we saw a significant influx in MBA's and JD's over people focused on health, manufacturing, science, etc. Now we take this well-educated group, focused on not creating tangible goods but instead instruments of wealth. Consider that in the early 1980's, there were approximately 6,000 'underlying assets', i.e. stocks, bonds, etc. By the late 1990's, this number had exploded to over 1.5 million investment vehicles -- this was not that we had a sudden burst in companies seeking capital to grow. What you saw was a generation of smart people developing new and different ways to make money off of existing investment opportunities -- the easiest to identify was the mutual fund, where people smarter than you would create combinations of these company investments and sell you a share of the package, one which would profit you as they were better at picking stocks than you. The capitalization of other assets continued to explode, as real estate, commercial mortgage liabilities, even song royalties were packaged and sold. It was a classic case of money creating money, with no real and tangible product being made other than more money. My dilemma with this is two-fold -- one, is there really a true sense of accomplishment in coming up with new and interesting ways to package and resell the profits that 3M and Coca-Cola make, and two, has the net result of this in our society been overall a positive or negative one? It is well worth digging into, but I can only wonder what would have happened if my generation had spent more time focusing on innovation, engineering, medicine, and social issues instead of banking, insurance, investments and other money-making ventures. The current situation certainly gives us indication as to the societal impact -- the division of wealth in the US continues to grow at a substantial rate. The lack of innovation in any area except financial services means that we are losing core industries around which jobs and societies can be created. As the bubble the financial efforts created have burst, we are left looking at the wreckage wondering how much better off we are -- other than a select few holding all of the funds, overall I feel we have reduced the number of occupational alternatives while raising the general cost of living. I am encouraged to see my children's generation gravitate towards smaller being better -- less McMansions, less Hummers, and a little more bohemian existence that does not revolve around money; like every generation, I can only hope they learn from our mistakes.
So back from how to handle what we do and how it affects us, individually and as a society. Remember, my focus goes back to the Law of Existence -- increase overall happiness to all without infringing on the happiness of others [and yes, this is simply a variation on the Golden Rule, as well as the Eight Fold path of the Bodhavistas, etc. -- I never said I was original, I'm just working my way through all of it!]. We have gotten into a situation, thanks as much to the wonderful world of marketing as anything else, that we focus on what we want before we focus on how we get it. Try this on for size -- what if our focus from the start is what we want to do; what brings us happiness? This means as parents, we raise our children from the start to experience the world around them at all times and see what motivates them. It means that as they get older, our education is focused on providing exposure to as many new stimuli as possible -- again, so that the growth of an individual is in determining what makes them tick, whether it's taking apart the TV to see how it works or drawing pictures of the trees outside. As the person matures, education then becomes more tailored to there desires. There should be some basic topics covered for survival -- basic math, English, or whatever the appropriate language is to communicate. After that, it should be desire-driven -- imagine an education not by rote but driven by your interests, peppered with a dose of something new every so often to open you to new possibilities. This carries over into what you do -- society will determine the value of your accomplishments for monetary purposes, and THAT determines your means of existence. Right now, we do exactly the opposite: I want a four bedroom house, a sports car, a vacation home, etc. -- how do I get there. It goes back to that fundamental failure of capitalism -- value is defined in terms of dollars and sense, not overall satisfaction and happiness. It forces us to attack life backwards -- we torture our children to exceed in all aspects of school so they can go to the best college so that they can make the most money to be "successful". Time to redefine what successful means...
I think I've meandered enough for today -- I'm not even sure where the next post will take me...stay tuned...
Friday, December 3, 2010
Monday, November 1, 2010
Emotional Happiness -- what is love [other than a bad '80's song]
OK, so I have my litmus test of happiness -- not saying it's finalized, but so far I'm still happy with my law of existence. The issue at hand is now defining what constitutes 'real' happiness -- most could argue that drugs, alcohol and the like provide happiness. I would argue that pharmaceuticals provide only a transient state similar to happiness -- think of it as taking the 'ignorance is bliss' route. Remove most of my brain, and I'm sure I'd be 'happy' -- too bad I wouldn't really know and understand it. I would like to be a little higher up the evolution chain than my dog - thanks. So medication for the sake of happiness is questionable at best [and I'm not talking about prescriptions for chemical imbalances that actually impede the ability to be happy -- separate issue]. I've just found, and believe me it is through a lifetime of experiment and use, that drugs and alcohol do not provide any real means of being happy, only ignorant.
I argued before that one path to happiness is via intelligence -- that simple appreciation derived from knowledge and experience, the ability to solve a problem, etc. Not exactly a thrill a minute, but behind it is a happiness that can certainly be longer lasting than a couple of beers. I think one of the major areas is what I'm daring to step into today -- emotional happiness. I started with intelligent pursuits, because for the most part, they are actually simpler and well defined; I'm happier when I grow as a person intellectually, and that has a measurable quality to it [completed a task, proposed a solution, you get the idea]. Emotions are so much more difficult to define, and thus infinitely more complex. Yet, some of the greatest happiness a person can achieve are through the positive emotions brought about by personal interaction with others. Love, friendship, camaraderie -- unless you are a hermit [and in which case wouldn't be reading this, so never mind], you have felt varying intensities of these emotions, and I would guarantee that all bring some level of happiness to you. Studies have shown that falling in love creates actual physical and biochemical changes in the human body -- there's something there more than just Hallmark cards. Positive human interactions -- even tiny ones [letting the driver merge in front of you instead of playing chicken at the merge lane] -- have a multiplicative effect on the happiness of all involved. Try the experiment one time -- I know have many times and am continually surprised at its continued success. Spend a day [afternoon, whatever], going out of your way to be kind to people. Hold the door, help someone carry something, give directions, whatever, and watch what happens. You will encounter people who are skeptical, who ignore you, or take advantage of you -- don't let this discourage you. You will notice something magical happen as you continue through the day -- people around you will begin to exhibit similar behavior. The person you held the door for will pick up the bag someone dropped, a total stranger will hold the door for someone behind them, and so on. I'm not saying everyone will follow suit, but unequivocally you will actually create a positive change in people. Positive emotions are contagious and lead to a net increase in the happiness of people around you -- note that the converse is equally as true. Spend 15 minutes around a negative person, and no matter how well you felt at the start, you will find yourself beginning to have negative thoughts -- there will be a palpable tension in the air.
This only scratches the surface -- most would argue that it is common sense that if we all acted a little nicer to each other the world would be a better place. Well, why don't we? I think we get introduced to that other emotion -- the anti-emotion also known as fear. Thoreau was right -- most of us live our lives in quiet desperation. The cause is not desperation, though -- it is fear. In the experiment above, most don't behave as above because they fear a lack of reciprocation, or worse yet, abuse by the other party of their goodwill. Fear is a powerful emotion, and arguably the biggest barrier to a person living my my rule of existence. Unlike dealing with intelligent issues, failure on an emotional basis hits us far deeper with a far more lasting effect. Sadly, I believe this is more perception than anything else -- we allow ourselves to let our fear to get the best of us. Let's take an example everyone has experienced -- to fall in love and have our heart broken. It's happened to me, to others -- to anyone who has taken the chance to bare their soul to another. The cliche is that it is better to have loved and lost than never loved at all -- crazy as it is, I would agree with this wholeheartedly. Life is a sum of our experiences -- a life well-lived, by my law of existence, would be one where you have maximized the positive and happy experiences in your life. I would rather fall in love a hundred times and have my heart broken each time than to have never loved at all -- the rush of bonding with a person [or pet, or whatever] at any level so outweighs the pain when it is gone. Obviously, the best case scenario would be what the romantic in all of us seeks -- love without the downside; without the heartbreak. Is this feasible?
There is considerable question as to why human beings fall in love and what the drivers are behind it. There is a physical component -- once the hormones kick in after puberty until they are all dried up, we are sexual and sensual animals. Fact of life, get over it. Sometimes it's for the same sex, somethings for the opposite -- again, if it makes you happy without infringing on someone elses happiness [or better yet, makes both parties happy], then it is worth doing. I am constantly amazed how we as a species have attached the act of sex with love -- I wonder how much of this is biological and how much of this is societal. Obviously, as a species we have a biological dilemma -- the female of the species can only conceive once a month, our progeny are all but defenseless for several years; obviously, in order to propagate the species there needs to be some bond which maintains the male/female relationship until the children can fend for themselves. That's sex -- conception for the purpose of continuing your bloodline and our species. Somehow, love got mixed up with this, and I can only wonder where and why -- time for more research. The emotions derived from love are far more powerful than those of sex -- love implies a happiness from finding a person that shares your interests, your secrets, your dreams, etc. An orgasm, though physiologically wonderful, is a fleeting pleasure -- it certainly accents a loving relationship, but is not the primary driver of happiness. If it is, the relationship is ultimately doomed. Face it, anyone can have an orgasm by themselves -- however, it is certainly much more fun with someone else and still better when it's someone you have feelings for.
The other issue with love is that it also has a fleeting nature to it -- as discussed before, tests have shown that the brain undergoes biochemical changes when falling in love; however, how much of that is the thrill of falling in love with someone new, and how much is actually a love that can last -- one based on mutual feelings and not just 'wow, we're both attracted to each other'. I think this is why divorce rates are so high -- in fact, if not for the societal pressures to maintain a 'nuclear family', I believe those rates would be even higher. It really begs the question of what to do when one falls out of love, and if monogamy is really feasible or just a societal construct. Again, let's begin with the biological reason for love -- evaluation of a mate physically, emotionally and intellectually which will guarantee the best chance of successfull children. Men produce billions of sperm in a lifetime and can conceive at any point in time from puberty until old age. Women produce a limited number of eggs over a given time -- ergo a culture driven by women making the relationship choices to produce the best offspring [as much as it may appear to the contrary]. Love would appear to be the culmination of emotions driven by physical attraction as well as other stimuli with the purpose of continuing the species. This would imply that the happiness brought by love is fleeting -- it would peak early in the relationship, it would carry through to the creation of children, and once the children can fend for themselves, the need for the relationship [and happiness derived by it] is done. I know, not very romantic, but I believe this happens more often than not. Excluding those rare circumstances where one finds a soul mate that represents their true complement [leading to a lifetime of happiness for those rare and lucky bastards!], most people fall in and out of love. Should the experience lead to the creation of children, the emotions transfer to the young until such time as they can survive on their own. Let's go back to my original raison d'etre -- maximize your own happiness and others without infringing on anyone's. Well, we're in a difficult situation, aren't we? If I fall in love with someone, and we are both happy for months, maybe even years -- then we have children, and a new level of happiness and love grows as we raise those kids, that is positive for all involved. However, what happens if the love that was at the beginning of the relationship is no longer there? Worse yet, what if the reason for staying in the relationship is for the kids only -- thus decreasing my happiness to maintain others? Society has drummed into us the sanctity of marriage to overcome this issue -- basically, you made your choice, stick with it. I firmly believe that is the ONLY reason for marriage -- the happiest couples are the ones that don't need to get married [or do so for legal or other purposes only]. If you were truly happy in the relationship, you wouldn't need a piece of paper to validate it. If you are willing to forgo some of your happiness in a relationship with your mate because of your love for your offspring, you make a decision based on net overall happiness. When that love is gone, it is time to discuss options going forward -- if you are no longer happy with your mate [or vice versa], it is time to move on. I'm sure you would throw in my face 'but wait, you're adversely affecting the happiness of the other party'. I believe that overall, when one person is no longer in love, the reality is that both parties are seeing decreasing happiness -- that as difficult as the decision in, there is a time to move on and the opportunity for both parties to renew with someone new.
So love, the thorniest of all emotions, is one that I envision as being very different than what society hands us now. I firmly believe a more open society is a happier society -- how much domestic violence, rape, broken families and the like is driven by a need to maintain societal norms? If two people meet and fall in love, enjoy it while it lasts -- however, should one party no longer feel the same way [perhaps discovered by living together], or should outside stimulus be necessary [she wants kids, he doesn't], these things need to be addressed in an open and honest way. Failing to do so creates a deeper range of very negative emotions -- from jealousy to anger to infidelity [the last being defined by society, not me]. Marriage is an antiquated and useless convention brought to us by religion, usually resulting in subjugation in one or both of the parties. I believe we need to start opening our minds to how human relationships can be -- this can be done without harm occuring to our society or our offspring. I'll go into other emotional happiness further -- I've only picked love because I feel it is the strongest and deadliest of emotions. I fear that gaining true happiness from love flies counter in the face of current society -- we have placed such emphasis on puritan ideals and ancient ideas that it is difficult for most people to see a different path. I would envision love as a lifelong search for my ideal partner [yes, I'm a romantic], with relationships being created on the way, which when complete are parted amicably as both parties move on to their continued search for that lifelong partner. You may never find that partner [OK, I'm a tragic romantic], but the search, the journey and the connections made are worth the effort.
Next time I'll try to delve more into personal connections -- if you see me spending a lot of time on emotional happiness, it is because I firmly believe it is our best source of happiness as well as our greatest source of pain. I'd like to figure out how to increase the first and decrease the second....
I argued before that one path to happiness is via intelligence -- that simple appreciation derived from knowledge and experience, the ability to solve a problem, etc. Not exactly a thrill a minute, but behind it is a happiness that can certainly be longer lasting than a couple of beers. I think one of the major areas is what I'm daring to step into today -- emotional happiness. I started with intelligent pursuits, because for the most part, they are actually simpler and well defined; I'm happier when I grow as a person intellectually, and that has a measurable quality to it [completed a task, proposed a solution, you get the idea]. Emotions are so much more difficult to define, and thus infinitely more complex. Yet, some of the greatest happiness a person can achieve are through the positive emotions brought about by personal interaction with others. Love, friendship, camaraderie -- unless you are a hermit [and in which case wouldn't be reading this, so never mind], you have felt varying intensities of these emotions, and I would guarantee that all bring some level of happiness to you. Studies have shown that falling in love creates actual physical and biochemical changes in the human body -- there's something there more than just Hallmark cards. Positive human interactions -- even tiny ones [letting the driver merge in front of you instead of playing chicken at the merge lane] -- have a multiplicative effect on the happiness of all involved. Try the experiment one time -- I know have many times and am continually surprised at its continued success. Spend a day [afternoon, whatever], going out of your way to be kind to people. Hold the door, help someone carry something, give directions, whatever, and watch what happens. You will encounter people who are skeptical, who ignore you, or take advantage of you -- don't let this discourage you. You will notice something magical happen as you continue through the day -- people around you will begin to exhibit similar behavior. The person you held the door for will pick up the bag someone dropped, a total stranger will hold the door for someone behind them, and so on. I'm not saying everyone will follow suit, but unequivocally you will actually create a positive change in people. Positive emotions are contagious and lead to a net increase in the happiness of people around you -- note that the converse is equally as true. Spend 15 minutes around a negative person, and no matter how well you felt at the start, you will find yourself beginning to have negative thoughts -- there will be a palpable tension in the air.
This only scratches the surface -- most would argue that it is common sense that if we all acted a little nicer to each other the world would be a better place. Well, why don't we? I think we get introduced to that other emotion -- the anti-emotion also known as fear. Thoreau was right -- most of us live our lives in quiet desperation. The cause is not desperation, though -- it is fear. In the experiment above, most don't behave as above because they fear a lack of reciprocation, or worse yet, abuse by the other party of their goodwill. Fear is a powerful emotion, and arguably the biggest barrier to a person living my my rule of existence. Unlike dealing with intelligent issues, failure on an emotional basis hits us far deeper with a far more lasting effect. Sadly, I believe this is more perception than anything else -- we allow ourselves to let our fear to get the best of us. Let's take an example everyone has experienced -- to fall in love and have our heart broken. It's happened to me, to others -- to anyone who has taken the chance to bare their soul to another. The cliche is that it is better to have loved and lost than never loved at all -- crazy as it is, I would agree with this wholeheartedly. Life is a sum of our experiences -- a life well-lived, by my law of existence, would be one where you have maximized the positive and happy experiences in your life. I would rather fall in love a hundred times and have my heart broken each time than to have never loved at all -- the rush of bonding with a person [or pet, or whatever] at any level so outweighs the pain when it is gone. Obviously, the best case scenario would be what the romantic in all of us seeks -- love without the downside; without the heartbreak. Is this feasible?
There is considerable question as to why human beings fall in love and what the drivers are behind it. There is a physical component -- once the hormones kick in after puberty until they are all dried up, we are sexual and sensual animals. Fact of life, get over it. Sometimes it's for the same sex, somethings for the opposite -- again, if it makes you happy without infringing on someone elses happiness [or better yet, makes both parties happy], then it is worth doing. I am constantly amazed how we as a species have attached the act of sex with love -- I wonder how much of this is biological and how much of this is societal. Obviously, as a species we have a biological dilemma -- the female of the species can only conceive once a month, our progeny are all but defenseless for several years; obviously, in order to propagate the species there needs to be some bond which maintains the male/female relationship until the children can fend for themselves. That's sex -- conception for the purpose of continuing your bloodline and our species. Somehow, love got mixed up with this, and I can only wonder where and why -- time for more research. The emotions derived from love are far more powerful than those of sex -- love implies a happiness from finding a person that shares your interests, your secrets, your dreams, etc. An orgasm, though physiologically wonderful, is a fleeting pleasure -- it certainly accents a loving relationship, but is not the primary driver of happiness. If it is, the relationship is ultimately doomed. Face it, anyone can have an orgasm by themselves -- however, it is certainly much more fun with someone else and still better when it's someone you have feelings for.
The other issue with love is that it also has a fleeting nature to it -- as discussed before, tests have shown that the brain undergoes biochemical changes when falling in love; however, how much of that is the thrill of falling in love with someone new, and how much is actually a love that can last -- one based on mutual feelings and not just 'wow, we're both attracted to each other'. I think this is why divorce rates are so high -- in fact, if not for the societal pressures to maintain a 'nuclear family', I believe those rates would be even higher. It really begs the question of what to do when one falls out of love, and if monogamy is really feasible or just a societal construct. Again, let's begin with the biological reason for love -- evaluation of a mate physically, emotionally and intellectually which will guarantee the best chance of successfull children. Men produce billions of sperm in a lifetime and can conceive at any point in time from puberty until old age. Women produce a limited number of eggs over a given time -- ergo a culture driven by women making the relationship choices to produce the best offspring [as much as it may appear to the contrary]. Love would appear to be the culmination of emotions driven by physical attraction as well as other stimuli with the purpose of continuing the species. This would imply that the happiness brought by love is fleeting -- it would peak early in the relationship, it would carry through to the creation of children, and once the children can fend for themselves, the need for the relationship [and happiness derived by it] is done. I know, not very romantic, but I believe this happens more often than not. Excluding those rare circumstances where one finds a soul mate that represents their true complement [leading to a lifetime of happiness for those rare and lucky bastards!], most people fall in and out of love. Should the experience lead to the creation of children, the emotions transfer to the young until such time as they can survive on their own. Let's go back to my original raison d'etre -- maximize your own happiness and others without infringing on anyone's. Well, we're in a difficult situation, aren't we? If I fall in love with someone, and we are both happy for months, maybe even years -- then we have children, and a new level of happiness and love grows as we raise those kids, that is positive for all involved. However, what happens if the love that was at the beginning of the relationship is no longer there? Worse yet, what if the reason for staying in the relationship is for the kids only -- thus decreasing my happiness to maintain others? Society has drummed into us the sanctity of marriage to overcome this issue -- basically, you made your choice, stick with it. I firmly believe that is the ONLY reason for marriage -- the happiest couples are the ones that don't need to get married [or do so for legal or other purposes only]. If you were truly happy in the relationship, you wouldn't need a piece of paper to validate it. If you are willing to forgo some of your happiness in a relationship with your mate because of your love for your offspring, you make a decision based on net overall happiness. When that love is gone, it is time to discuss options going forward -- if you are no longer happy with your mate [or vice versa], it is time to move on. I'm sure you would throw in my face 'but wait, you're adversely affecting the happiness of the other party'. I believe that overall, when one person is no longer in love, the reality is that both parties are seeing decreasing happiness -- that as difficult as the decision in, there is a time to move on and the opportunity for both parties to renew with someone new.
So love, the thorniest of all emotions, is one that I envision as being very different than what society hands us now. I firmly believe a more open society is a happier society -- how much domestic violence, rape, broken families and the like is driven by a need to maintain societal norms? If two people meet and fall in love, enjoy it while it lasts -- however, should one party no longer feel the same way [perhaps discovered by living together], or should outside stimulus be necessary [she wants kids, he doesn't], these things need to be addressed in an open and honest way. Failing to do so creates a deeper range of very negative emotions -- from jealousy to anger to infidelity [the last being defined by society, not me]. Marriage is an antiquated and useless convention brought to us by religion, usually resulting in subjugation in one or both of the parties. I believe we need to start opening our minds to how human relationships can be -- this can be done without harm occuring to our society or our offspring. I'll go into other emotional happiness further -- I've only picked love because I feel it is the strongest and deadliest of emotions. I fear that gaining true happiness from love flies counter in the face of current society -- we have placed such emphasis on puritan ideals and ancient ideas that it is difficult for most people to see a different path. I would envision love as a lifelong search for my ideal partner [yes, I'm a romantic], with relationships being created on the way, which when complete are parted amicably as both parties move on to their continued search for that lifelong partner. You may never find that partner [OK, I'm a tragic romantic], but the search, the journey and the connections made are worth the effort.
Next time I'll try to delve more into personal connections -- if you see me spending a lot of time on emotional happiness, it is because I firmly believe it is our best source of happiness as well as our greatest source of pain. I'd like to figure out how to increase the first and decrease the second....
Tuesday, September 21, 2010
Sources of happiness -- part one...
Yes, it's been a while -- I never said this was a daily endeavor. Considering I'm doing this really for myself, not a huge panic -- having no publishing deadline is a wonderful thing!
So as I re-read my posts, what I'm trying to delve into are the larger questions; not so much in an esoteric fashion but in a pragmatic, what the hell are we doing here sense. So I'm an existentialist -- sue me.
At the base of it, I'm trying to figure out (a) what really separates us from our hairier cousins [primates, not your real cousins -- but if you have one, my apologies], (b) how we are truly distinct, and (c) how to better ourselves if that is the case. A meandering blog is the perfect opportunity for me -- I enjoy writing and talking [believe me, anyone who knows me will beg for me to shut up at a certain point!!] so this is a great outlet for me. For the most part, the majority of us have traded our liberties to sit in a cubicle or office chained in front of a computer doing relatively meaningless tasks for at least 50% of their waking lives -- I'm trying to figure out why, and what options exist to change that. May not mean much to you, but the seeds of a revolution are in here -- allow me to dig; who knows what may come up.
Back to the topic at hand -- happiness: real, soul-drenching happiness -- not the 'I just beat my high score on Galaga' happy [younger folk can search for that game - blast from the past]. All creatures seek those basics of survival -- food, shelter, protection from enemies / predators. Animals will join in packs and flocks in order to meet many of these needs -- as do humans. Regardless of the form of society, most begin with the basic necessity of meeting some or all of the basics from above. Although the shelter may be nicer than our animal brethren, we still have not moved a long distance from our primate cousins. But we are not bipedal, hairless apes you argue -- we have TiVo!! Yeah, OK -- you got me there... actually, our difference lies not in the amenities we have provided for ourselves [picking bugs out of each others fur and eating them must get old after a while], but in the fact that we CAN provide and create those amenities. This to me brings one of the potential paths to true happiness and a distinction from our animal brethren -- intelligence.
Thanks to the images provided by Stanley Kubrick, at some point, some uppity primate figured out that using something more than themselves gave them a competitive advantage -- it's been pandemonium ever since. If you're really going to get angry at someone for getting us into this mess, I'd have to put the blame on Guttenberg. Having a class of intellectuals with their scribes keeping information in the hands of the relative few was a great way to consolidate power and maintain control -- Pandora's box [or at least one version] has to be the day when the written word could be reproduced in mass quantity and for a relatively low labor cost. Intelligence was no longer in the hands of the few -- great idea A could not only be passed on to more people, but the next person could take idea A and build upon it to idea B and so on. It cannot be coincidence that our human society spent thousands of years as mostly agrarian or hunting and gathering societies up to the production of the printing press -- then in a matter of 500 years [a rounding error from an archaeological perspective], we have TiVo, iPhones, nuclear weapons, etc. And not just from a technological perspective -- the theological and philosophical debates which were privy to the select few have also been allowed to scatter creating a cacophony of debates and opinions. Of course, that debate hasn't always been civil [to paraphrase Dennis Miller, millions have killed each other arguing who has the best 'imaginary friend'] -- but that's for another day.
So the door was opened, and now the brilliance of a few was allowed to be released into the hands of the many. Has this been a good thing? Has this led to happiness as a society and individuals? This is where it gets difficult -- we've gotten a taste of good and bad. As our population continues to grow in a confined space, we are forced to band together less out of protection and more out of necessity for lack of space. Remember, our original drive as a species for banding together was survival -- I don't think our primate brethren looked over the hill and said, 'my, those guys look cool -- let's hang out with them'. Because of this, we are challenged with determining the best means of co-existing -- democracy, socialism, benevolent autocracy, etc. We certainly haven't found the right one yet, as I don't believe anyone would argue that an utopian society exists on the planet today. So for all of our technological advances driven by our ability stand on the shoulders of our ancestors, learn their knowledge and apply it to new and interesting areas, we still have not solved the 'softer' issues which continue to plague us as a species. Morality, society, philosophy, theology -- these are so much more difficult to deal with compared to science and technology. By its design, science and engineering are best served by the printed word -- the next generation can move that step forward from the last -- it's simply a matter of posing the problem and solving it. For the other areas, dispersion of thought only creates a plethora of ideas without steps to solving them -- and in here I believe lies a core problem in today's society.
We continue to expand scientifically without morality and philosophy keeping up. We continue to expand technology without dealing with the societal impact. We've done a fantastic job as primates of creating a world with a lot of 'what', and have completely failed to answer the 'why'. Look at how it manifests itself in daily life -- even something as simple as Facebook; where I can brag about having hundreds of 'friends'. The reality is, I actually interact with only a handful -- I can count on one hand the people that are truly friends in the aspect of being people that I can call when needed, can confide in, etc. We've done a masterful job at creating better and better weapons, yet have failed to create the institutions and means of resolving conflict -- there's a recipe for success. So we're armed and angry as a species -- brilliant. We have technology that is supposed to make our lives easier -- anyone feel like their life is easier?
Am I arguing for a Luddite existence? No, but I do want to question why we do what we do. So much is done in this world without thinking about the consequences -- I would like to see a push to start looking at decisions made with a simple premise. We can argue politics, religion, morality -- at the end of the day, I believe that everyone could agree that we are here for a very simple premise: to be happy without infringing on the happiness of others. I'd take that one step further, that to bring happiness to others is the ultimate goal -- particularly when done without being at the expense of one's self. This is key -- maybe I will repeat it and bold it because most of what I argue and search for will key off of meeting this premise. We'll call it Damon's Law of Existence -- We are here to bring happiness to others and ourselves without taking away from or infringing on another's happiness.
To me, this is a key element that separates us from nearly all other creatures -- happiness. Pleasure -- a good laugh, a smile, an orgasm, whatever; I believe that as you move from simple to more complex creatures, one of the defining traits that has always been overlooked is the ability of the creature to feel and seek things that make them happy. Does this look simple and childish -- sure; yet I would argue that this should be the driving force in everyone's life. This is the measure to start applying each and everything we do, singularly and as a species, in order to determine its quality. Am I arguing for rampant hedonism? No -- hedonsim ultimately leads to my happiness at the expense of others -- breaking the primarily law above. Now take that statement and start applying it to aspects of your life. Did that iPhone add or subtract to above? Well, the Skee-Ball app is pretty cool, and my calendar helps keep me sane, but I have to work that much harder to pay the monthly bill. Probably a wash. How does religion stack up? Each and every religion has within it the tenets to achieve above -- at the base of the current pantheon of religions [Muslim and Judao-Christian primarily] is the desire to achieve personal happiness; in most cases via obediance to a protocol which promises happiness in this life or the next. I'll delve into religion later, but at first blush most aspects meet the requirement -- the dilemma comes in the INABILITY to accept other's religions, thereby infringing on the happiness [or even the life] of others.
So, I have a starting point -- and to it we can apply it to our pursuits to define a course of action. I started this by looking at the first of three sources of happiness -- intellectual pursuits. Although it doesn't seem like it, paint me an optimist -- I believe this can be one of the greatest sources of happiness for us as a species. I would also point to is as one of our most critical differences between other species -- that ability of self-recognition, self-motivation, and self-examination. Reading a good book, hearing other ideas and trying to search for the truth within -- these are genuine sources of happiness. In a TV driven culture, it is sad how much we resort to leaving intellectual discourse at the door in return for sound bites, the flavor of the week, and mindless entertainment. Having said that, there are still glimmers of hope out there -- unfortunately, it's usually on public TV or somewhere in the Discovery/Science channel pantheon. A good movie [which is really just a visual representation of a good story, or in some cases art in motion] can also be a source of intellectual happiness -- especially one that makes you step back and think. Please -- this blog is my outlet for pursuing such a course, and the more I write, the happier I become. It is less a cathartic act of getting my frustrations off my chest -- it is more a search for some real truth in existence and a template to live by in order to make my world and others a better place by increasing happiness throughout.
Is it working? Well, in my office, instead of working for the past hour, I've written above -- and I have to tell you, it's put a grin on my face. It's also allowed me to give voice to a premise that I hope is the base of more self-discovery which could lead to positive change in my life. And if it can work for me, who knows where it can go.
Next post, looking at the emotional sources of happiness -- let's try delving into love and other four letter words...
So as I re-read my posts, what I'm trying to delve into are the larger questions; not so much in an esoteric fashion but in a pragmatic, what the hell are we doing here sense. So I'm an existentialist -- sue me.
At the base of it, I'm trying to figure out (a) what really separates us from our hairier cousins [primates, not your real cousins -- but if you have one, my apologies], (b) how we are truly distinct, and (c) how to better ourselves if that is the case. A meandering blog is the perfect opportunity for me -- I enjoy writing and talking [believe me, anyone who knows me will beg for me to shut up at a certain point!!] so this is a great outlet for me. For the most part, the majority of us have traded our liberties to sit in a cubicle or office chained in front of a computer doing relatively meaningless tasks for at least 50% of their waking lives -- I'm trying to figure out why, and what options exist to change that. May not mean much to you, but the seeds of a revolution are in here -- allow me to dig; who knows what may come up.
Back to the topic at hand -- happiness: real, soul-drenching happiness -- not the 'I just beat my high score on Galaga' happy [younger folk can search for that game - blast from the past]. All creatures seek those basics of survival -- food, shelter, protection from enemies / predators. Animals will join in packs and flocks in order to meet many of these needs -- as do humans. Regardless of the form of society, most begin with the basic necessity of meeting some or all of the basics from above. Although the shelter may be nicer than our animal brethren, we still have not moved a long distance from our primate cousins. But we are not bipedal, hairless apes you argue -- we have TiVo!! Yeah, OK -- you got me there... actually, our difference lies not in the amenities we have provided for ourselves [picking bugs out of each others fur and eating them must get old after a while], but in the fact that we CAN provide and create those amenities. This to me brings one of the potential paths to true happiness and a distinction from our animal brethren -- intelligence.
Thanks to the images provided by Stanley Kubrick, at some point, some uppity primate figured out that using something more than themselves gave them a competitive advantage -- it's been pandemonium ever since. If you're really going to get angry at someone for getting us into this mess, I'd have to put the blame on Guttenberg. Having a class of intellectuals with their scribes keeping information in the hands of the relative few was a great way to consolidate power and maintain control -- Pandora's box [or at least one version] has to be the day when the written word could be reproduced in mass quantity and for a relatively low labor cost. Intelligence was no longer in the hands of the few -- great idea A could not only be passed on to more people, but the next person could take idea A and build upon it to idea B and so on. It cannot be coincidence that our human society spent thousands of years as mostly agrarian or hunting and gathering societies up to the production of the printing press -- then in a matter of 500 years [a rounding error from an archaeological perspective], we have TiVo, iPhones, nuclear weapons, etc. And not just from a technological perspective -- the theological and philosophical debates which were privy to the select few have also been allowed to scatter creating a cacophony of debates and opinions. Of course, that debate hasn't always been civil [to paraphrase Dennis Miller, millions have killed each other arguing who has the best 'imaginary friend'] -- but that's for another day.
So the door was opened, and now the brilliance of a few was allowed to be released into the hands of the many. Has this been a good thing? Has this led to happiness as a society and individuals? This is where it gets difficult -- we've gotten a taste of good and bad. As our population continues to grow in a confined space, we are forced to band together less out of protection and more out of necessity for lack of space. Remember, our original drive as a species for banding together was survival -- I don't think our primate brethren looked over the hill and said, 'my, those guys look cool -- let's hang out with them'. Because of this, we are challenged with determining the best means of co-existing -- democracy, socialism, benevolent autocracy, etc. We certainly haven't found the right one yet, as I don't believe anyone would argue that an utopian society exists on the planet today. So for all of our technological advances driven by our ability stand on the shoulders of our ancestors, learn their knowledge and apply it to new and interesting areas, we still have not solved the 'softer' issues which continue to plague us as a species. Morality, society, philosophy, theology -- these are so much more difficult to deal with compared to science and technology. By its design, science and engineering are best served by the printed word -- the next generation can move that step forward from the last -- it's simply a matter of posing the problem and solving it. For the other areas, dispersion of thought only creates a plethora of ideas without steps to solving them -- and in here I believe lies a core problem in today's society.
We continue to expand scientifically without morality and philosophy keeping up. We continue to expand technology without dealing with the societal impact. We've done a fantastic job as primates of creating a world with a lot of 'what', and have completely failed to answer the 'why'. Look at how it manifests itself in daily life -- even something as simple as Facebook; where I can brag about having hundreds of 'friends'. The reality is, I actually interact with only a handful -- I can count on one hand the people that are truly friends in the aspect of being people that I can call when needed, can confide in, etc. We've done a masterful job at creating better and better weapons, yet have failed to create the institutions and means of resolving conflict -- there's a recipe for success. So we're armed and angry as a species -- brilliant. We have technology that is supposed to make our lives easier -- anyone feel like their life is easier?
Am I arguing for a Luddite existence? No, but I do want to question why we do what we do. So much is done in this world without thinking about the consequences -- I would like to see a push to start looking at decisions made with a simple premise. We can argue politics, religion, morality -- at the end of the day, I believe that everyone could agree that we are here for a very simple premise: to be happy without infringing on the happiness of others. I'd take that one step further, that to bring happiness to others is the ultimate goal -- particularly when done without being at the expense of one's self. This is key -- maybe I will repeat it and bold it because most of what I argue and search for will key off of meeting this premise. We'll call it Damon's Law of Existence -- We are here to bring happiness to others and ourselves without taking away from or infringing on another's happiness.
To me, this is a key element that separates us from nearly all other creatures -- happiness. Pleasure -- a good laugh, a smile, an orgasm, whatever; I believe that as you move from simple to more complex creatures, one of the defining traits that has always been overlooked is the ability of the creature to feel and seek things that make them happy. Does this look simple and childish -- sure; yet I would argue that this should be the driving force in everyone's life. This is the measure to start applying each and everything we do, singularly and as a species, in order to determine its quality. Am I arguing for rampant hedonism? No -- hedonsim ultimately leads to my happiness at the expense of others -- breaking the primarily law above. Now take that statement and start applying it to aspects of your life. Did that iPhone add or subtract to above? Well, the Skee-Ball app is pretty cool, and my calendar helps keep me sane, but I have to work that much harder to pay the monthly bill. Probably a wash. How does religion stack up? Each and every religion has within it the tenets to achieve above -- at the base of the current pantheon of religions [Muslim and Judao-Christian primarily] is the desire to achieve personal happiness; in most cases via obediance to a protocol which promises happiness in this life or the next. I'll delve into religion later, but at first blush most aspects meet the requirement -- the dilemma comes in the INABILITY to accept other's religions, thereby infringing on the happiness [or even the life] of others.
So, I have a starting point -- and to it we can apply it to our pursuits to define a course of action. I started this by looking at the first of three sources of happiness -- intellectual pursuits. Although it doesn't seem like it, paint me an optimist -- I believe this can be one of the greatest sources of happiness for us as a species. I would also point to is as one of our most critical differences between other species -- that ability of self-recognition, self-motivation, and self-examination. Reading a good book, hearing other ideas and trying to search for the truth within -- these are genuine sources of happiness. In a TV driven culture, it is sad how much we resort to leaving intellectual discourse at the door in return for sound bites, the flavor of the week, and mindless entertainment. Having said that, there are still glimmers of hope out there -- unfortunately, it's usually on public TV or somewhere in the Discovery/Science channel pantheon. A good movie [which is really just a visual representation of a good story, or in some cases art in motion] can also be a source of intellectual happiness -- especially one that makes you step back and think. Please -- this blog is my outlet for pursuing such a course, and the more I write, the happier I become. It is less a cathartic act of getting my frustrations off my chest -- it is more a search for some real truth in existence and a template to live by in order to make my world and others a better place by increasing happiness throughout.
Is it working? Well, in my office, instead of working for the past hour, I've written above -- and I have to tell you, it's put a grin on my face. It's also allowed me to give voice to a premise that I hope is the base of more self-discovery which could lead to positive change in my life. And if it can work for me, who knows where it can go.
Next post, looking at the emotional sources of happiness -- let's try delving into love and other four letter words...
Friday, May 21, 2010
Happiness -- let's dig a little deeper
OK, so the next step is to look at what makes people happy -- or at least content. I believe there are several levels here -- the most basic and animal needs are through pleasing our senses -- food, sex, warmth and comfort, etc. Is that really creating happiness though? A good meal versus a bad meal -- given a choice between donuts and bran cereal, I think most people are leaning to the former. But why? Is that really providing happiness? I don't think so -- food provides the basic fuel to survive; I wonder at which point the human race was fooled into believing that a sugar, fat and salt filled diet with explosions of taste was necessary and in fact delivered pleasure. Now, I say all this as a morbidly obese man [there's two words you never want to see together -- in fact, I don't think I want 'morbid' in any sentence describing me]. Part of what I grapple with is that battle with food -- I think as I get older, it becomes so much more apparent that we have transformed into a society dependent upon enormous corporations which depend on long lasting food delivered in a cost effective manner. Considering the perishable nature of food, this means changing the food itself to survive longer. Want to get scared one day? Read the ingredients list on just about any food you have -- unless you have a degree in chemistry, you will find ingredients you cannot identify. Yet that's what you're eating -- still happy? [as an aside, I'm still trying to figure out what Munchos really are...]
So food is not really a means to happiness -- it's a means to sustenance. However, in our consumer-driven culture where the almighty dollar is God [it says it right on the currency, don't blame me], food has become a presumed means to happiness; the result of which is the fattest society in modern history [myself included]. I think the concept of food and happiness covers much of the other creature comforts we surround ourselves with: home, car, clothes, etc. A mobile home or cabin is certainly more than enough to survive -- essentially, you merely need a shelter to keep you warm [or cool] and protect you from the elements. The need for a McMansion with all of the amenities is again driven more by good marketing and a consumer culture than actual need or happiness. The same obviously holds true with clothes -- I'm still struggling with the concept of $200 jeans. Cars are the worst of it -- effectively, we need the ability to travel from point A to point B. I wonder if the Eisenhower administration could see the lasting effects of their Interstate highway system. Although creating jobs at the time for post-war veterans and an infrastructure that allowed us to expand our local horizons, the expense has been staggering. Think of all of the money time and effort created due to suburban sprawl, continued expansion, etc., driving up our insatiable need for internal combustion vehicles run by petroleum where we consume far more than we have. The money spent, lives lost, communities destroyed, urban decay created -- be interesting to look at what the net trade-off is.
So, most of what we take as creature comforts for happiness are really basics that have been dressed up by effective marketing to get us to spend more for less -- and through that transaction to believe that we are happier. I don't think so -- again, we've merely created a vehicle to drive more consumption and keep the engine called capitalism going regardless of the human cost. So we can't buy happiness -- well, wait, what am I working for? This is where it starts to get interesting. As in my last post, I'm trapped in a job paying for items that upon introspection offer no net happiness. So what does provide happiness -- real happiness? I believe we will have to delve more into the intellectual, emotional, and spiritual realms -- so far capitalism is providing the shadows of happiness.
I'll attack those three realms on my next post -- onward and upward...
So food is not really a means to happiness -- it's a means to sustenance. However, in our consumer-driven culture where the almighty dollar is God [it says it right on the currency, don't blame me], food has become a presumed means to happiness; the result of which is the fattest society in modern history [myself included]. I think the concept of food and happiness covers much of the other creature comforts we surround ourselves with: home, car, clothes, etc. A mobile home or cabin is certainly more than enough to survive -- essentially, you merely need a shelter to keep you warm [or cool] and protect you from the elements. The need for a McMansion with all of the amenities is again driven more by good marketing and a consumer culture than actual need or happiness. The same obviously holds true with clothes -- I'm still struggling with the concept of $200 jeans. Cars are the worst of it -- effectively, we need the ability to travel from point A to point B. I wonder if the Eisenhower administration could see the lasting effects of their Interstate highway system. Although creating jobs at the time for post-war veterans and an infrastructure that allowed us to expand our local horizons, the expense has been staggering. Think of all of the money time and effort created due to suburban sprawl, continued expansion, etc., driving up our insatiable need for internal combustion vehicles run by petroleum where we consume far more than we have. The money spent, lives lost, communities destroyed, urban decay created -- be interesting to look at what the net trade-off is.
So, most of what we take as creature comforts for happiness are really basics that have been dressed up by effective marketing to get us to spend more for less -- and through that transaction to believe that we are happier. I don't think so -- again, we've merely created a vehicle to drive more consumption and keep the engine called capitalism going regardless of the human cost. So we can't buy happiness -- well, wait, what am I working for? This is where it starts to get interesting. As in my last post, I'm trapped in a job paying for items that upon introspection offer no net happiness. So what does provide happiness -- real happiness? I believe we will have to delve more into the intellectual, emotional, and spiritual realms -- so far capitalism is providing the shadows of happiness.
I'll attack those three realms on my next post -- onward and upward...
Wednesday, May 19, 2010
And so it begins.....
Ahh, a place for discourse on the meanderings of the day and the meaning of life....
Today's thoughts are on work -- do the ends really justify the means? It continues to amaze me how many people, including myself, are so miserable with what they do as an occupation. What I struggle with more is the inability to change or move forward with something more desirable. The older I get, the more I realize how inconsequential 'things' are in life. Take an inventory of your possessions, but with the following caveat: place a star on those possessions that bring you happiness. Not 100% of the inventory, is it? Now take those items you were bold enough to give a star, and ask yourself why they make you happy. Don't be shocked when more than half of the items fall into the category of 'life avoidance' [yes, that begins with your TV, video games, etc.]. So we slave away at work to pay for things that try to make us forget how much our life sucks? Hamsters on wheels everywhere are laughing, I am sure....
So does this mean we should all up and quit? Or, like me, do you have people other than yourself who depend on you and that income you hate to produce? And what are the implications there? I spend an enormous amount of time fighting a latent anger being trapped and having to provide for a family that does not recognize this 'sacrifice' I am making for them. Is that fair? Of course not -- much like the petulant teen crying 'I didn't ask to be born', my family certainly isn't putting a gun to my head and sending me to work [although somedays, I'd swear I felt a knife at my back...].
What's my point? I think I'm making a great effort and finding the excuses each and every one of us makes to drive ourselves crazy at jobs we do not enjoy. It creates a vicious cycle -- it is that cycle that I am trying to find ways to break. First and foremost, it goes back to the concept of happiness and satisfaction -- what actually works for people? I'm on a search to find truly happy people -- I need to know what makes them tick. And that's excluding the medicated, infirm, etc. -- ignorance may be bliss but I prefer not to seek a lobotomy as the path to happiness. In the next couple of posts, I'm going to try and dig deeper into that concept of happiness -- at the root of it, I believe that most people are too afraid to actually step out and do what makes themselves truly happy [including myself]. My hope is to figure out why and break the cycle. More to follow -- who knows where this may go....
Today's thoughts are on work -- do the ends really justify the means? It continues to amaze me how many people, including myself, are so miserable with what they do as an occupation. What I struggle with more is the inability to change or move forward with something more desirable. The older I get, the more I realize how inconsequential 'things' are in life. Take an inventory of your possessions, but with the following caveat: place a star on those possessions that bring you happiness. Not 100% of the inventory, is it? Now take those items you were bold enough to give a star, and ask yourself why they make you happy. Don't be shocked when more than half of the items fall into the category of 'life avoidance' [yes, that begins with your TV, video games, etc.]. So we slave away at work to pay for things that try to make us forget how much our life sucks? Hamsters on wheels everywhere are laughing, I am sure....
So does this mean we should all up and quit? Or, like me, do you have people other than yourself who depend on you and that income you hate to produce? And what are the implications there? I spend an enormous amount of time fighting a latent anger being trapped and having to provide for a family that does not recognize this 'sacrifice' I am making for them. Is that fair? Of course not -- much like the petulant teen crying 'I didn't ask to be born', my family certainly isn't putting a gun to my head and sending me to work [although somedays, I'd swear I felt a knife at my back...].
What's my point? I think I'm making a great effort and finding the excuses each and every one of us makes to drive ourselves crazy at jobs we do not enjoy. It creates a vicious cycle -- it is that cycle that I am trying to find ways to break. First and foremost, it goes back to the concept of happiness and satisfaction -- what actually works for people? I'm on a search to find truly happy people -- I need to know what makes them tick. And that's excluding the medicated, infirm, etc. -- ignorance may be bliss but I prefer not to seek a lobotomy as the path to happiness. In the next couple of posts, I'm going to try and dig deeper into that concept of happiness -- at the root of it, I believe that most people are too afraid to actually step out and do what makes themselves truly happy [including myself]. My hope is to figure out why and break the cycle. More to follow -- who knows where this may go....
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)