Happiness

A exploration of some ideas on the nature of happiness.

Student:  Professor, I’ve been thinking a lot about happiness lately.  Why is it, do you think, that some people have difficulty finding it? 

Professor:  Let me make sure I understand your question.  Are you wondering why it is that some people are never happy?  If so, I’d suggest that such a state would constitute an atypical mental attitude that may require a medical or psychological rather than a philosophical answer.

S:  No, that’s not what I meant.  What I mean is, why are some people happier than others?  

P:  Oh, that’s different.  You want to know how many different reasons there may be for one person to be happier than another person.  I’d suggest that you’d be better equipped to answer that than I.  How many pair-wise comparisons can there be in a population of roughly 6 billion people?  That might be a starting point for the number of different reasons there may be.

S:  Ha!  I can’t do that one in my head, but it’s an astronomical number.  I get the point – there may be as many different reasons for one person to be happier than another as there are people.

P:  Not to mention the fact the each person might have a multitude of reasons to be happy or sad depending on the situation at hand.  Perhaps you’d like to try your question again?

S:  Alright, then how about this?  What does it take to be happy?

P:  Much better – that’s a question that I think we can discuss.  Let’s approach an answer systematically.  It’s such a broad and personal subject, as you just demonstrated, that we’ll need to narrow our focus to have a meaningful discourse.  Let’s talk a bit about the word itself and what it means to us.  Then we might explore what it is that brings us happiness or the converse.  And we can discuss a range of human experience from extremes of happiness to extremes of sorrow.  Then we may have some context within which to discuss what it takes to be happy and perhaps, why some people seem generally happier than others.  Just keep in mind that we can’t hope to explain all aspects of human happiness from within the confines of our respective windows on the world.  But let’s open the window and see what we find. 

S:  Fair enough.  Let’s start with the dictionary.  Says here that the word “happy” is derived from the Middle English word “hap” and Old Norse “happ” meaning “luck,” “fortune,” or “chance.”  It appears that many European words for “happy” originally meant “lucky.”  So, when one is fortunate or prosperous and when good things happ-en, people tend to be happ-y.  That seems straightforward enough, right?   

P:  Yes, but it’s not just when good things happen to us.  We can be made happy by doing something nice for another person, by hearing beautiful music, or by any number of external stimuli.  Let’s try to pull out some of the general elements of happiness.  Consider this matrix – perhaps it can provide a starting point for discussion of internal and external sources of happiness.

Form of Expression	Focus of Attention
	Outward – Toward Others	Inward – Toward Self
Mental	Thinking nice thoughts about others, meditation, prayer	Feeling loved, pleasing memories
Physical	Saying nice things to someone, giving a gift, doing something nice for another person	Receiving a gift, receiving praise, hearing a joke, seeing something funny

There are mental and physical forms of expression.  Both mental and physical expressions can be focused either outward toward others or inward toward ourselves.  We can think of reasons to be happy based on memories of past events, relationships, lessons, songs, places, philosophical or religious perception, awareness of loving friends and family, contentment for one’s quality of life and health, and other internalized perceptions.  These fall in the inward mental quadrant.

We can also be receptive to physical acts that bring us happiness like receiving love or praise from another, receiving a gift, or winning a prize.  Such events fall into an inward physical quadrant. 

Similarly, outward expressions - things we think about others or do for others can make us happy.  We’re happy when we fall in love or feel love and affection toward another (outward mental quadrant).   And, saying something nice to someone else, successfully completing a task, winning a race, scoring well on a test, or savoring a fine meal can bring happiness (outward physical quadrant). 

S:  That makes sense.  What about people who are happy being aimless, unstructured and spontaneous?

P:  That would fall into the internal mental - if that sort of thinking makes them happy, then who’s to argue?

S:  Then what about people who are unreceptive to external niceties – maybe they just don’t want to be cheered up?

P:  Well, our quadrants are devoted to happiness-generating situations so we don’t have a place for them at the moment.

S:  And what about people who find pleasure in other’s pain?

P:  We can’t hope to account for all the nuances of human experience when it comes to something as subjective to happiness.  And I’d suggest that we not attempt to incorporate aberrant mental attitudes in our current thought exercise.  These four simple categories may be generally but not universally applicable – every individual will have his or her own subtleties, but in simplest terms it would appear that we either create happiness from within or something external stimulates happiness and those happy thoughts can either be directed outward toward others or inward towards us.  It may be equally instructive to think about things that make us unhappy and then consider if we are happy when the converse applies:

•  If the loss of loved ones, either permanent or temporary makes us sad, then, reinforcing loving relationships should bring happiness which could fall in either of the physical quadrants as giving and receiving love;
•  If we’re unhappy when our plans are thwarted or our objectives, hopes, and dreams are dashed, then achieving said objectives should bring happiness.  Completing a challenging task falls in the outwardly physical quadrant;
• Most people are unhappy when they’re injured or ill; so being hale and robust should make us happy which falls in the inward mental quadrant; and
•  When people are unfriendly or uncooperative we tend to be less happy than when they are cordial and helpful which falls in the inwardly-directed physical quadrant.

S:  OK, I follow and that makes sense but what about the temporal aspect?  It seems to me that we can be “happy” and “sad” from moment to moment.   We might be annoyed by the buzzing of the mosquitoes, but we’re not going to let them ruin our vacation – we’ll drink a little more rum and button up our collars!

P:  True, from my experience, when I’m happy, minor irritations have less of an impact but they can be distracting and cause me to flip flop from being happy about whatever activity is occurring to being chagrined about some nagging frustration.  When I’m extremely happy though, I may be entirely oblivious to annoyances that might otherwise cause me to be blue or sad.

S:  I remember being at a funeral home for the visitation for a friend’s wife.  Clearly it was a terribly sad time for him but I and others with me were able to produce a few smiles and even a laugh or two when we talked and compared stories.  Not that we made him “happy” but I believe we were able to bring a little “happiness” to him at that extremely difficult time.  Of course, he had to be receptive to what we said for it to be effective and it likely only lasted a short while, but I find it interesting how people are able to flip the emotional switch so quickly between happiness and sadness.

P:  Speaking of flipping from one side to the other – what would you say is the middle ground.  Is ‘contentment’ half way between the extremes of happiness and sadness?

S:  I’d put ‘contentment’ on the positive side with happiness and ‘resignation’ on the negative side with sadness.  When I’m content, I feel satisfied with the way things are and consider myself to be happy.  I may be able to do certain things to increase my degree of happiness, but if no action is taken, I can remain content.  Resignation on the other hand implies a degree on unhappiness that one is forced to accept.

P:  Assuming that there is a continuum between extremes of happiness and sadness, what’s the middle point if not contentment?  Let’s map out some steps between the two extremes and see what we find:

1.     Bliss – we’ll call this the epitome of happiness – nirvana – let’s say a spiritual ideal – rarely attained

2.     Awe - Birth of a child, grandeur of Nature, speechlessness

3.     Ecstasy – loving emotional devotion, euphoria

4.     Elation – Shared peak moments – once in a lifetime,

5.     Joyful – challenging personal goals achieved, victory 

6.     Happy – sharing joy with family and friends,

7.     Satisfaction – routine deeds well done, accomplishments

8.     Amusement - jokes, entertainment, farts (sometimes)

9.     Contentment – pleasantly at ease, more positive than negative,

10. Tranquility – yin/yang – transition – a pool of water

11. Uncomfortable – not at ease – more negative than positive

12. Irritation/annoyance – mosquitoes, poison ivy, farts (other times)

13. Resignation – putting up with an annoyance and moving on (noisy neighbor, barking dog, dickhead boss)

14. Sadness – reprimands, arguments, fights

15. Pain/suffering – physical injuries – minor to severe

16. Depression – loss of job, divorce, extreme stress

17. Grief/Misery – emotional separation and aloneness, loss of loved one

18. Torture – extremely agonizing mental and physical ordeal

19. Despair – the depths of spiritual loss – no hope of salvation

Returning to your original question, well – the third iteration, your question seems to be, “how is it that some people tend to stay in the first 9 categories more than the bottom 9.  Naturally, from time to time, we all cycle through various aspects of this continuum – hopefully more on the positive side than the negative.

S:  I suppose, but just thinking about my own experience, and I consider myself to be a generally positive and happy person, I feel like I hang out in the “contented” category most of the time.  I find it hard to imagine that too many people spend most of their time being blissed out.  I’d think someone like that was on drugs or something.  I’ve experienced a range of happy emotions and if someone asked if I’m “happy” I’d say, “yes” but I probably wouldn’t say I’m ecstatic or even joyful all the time.  I think we jump in and out of these discreet categories depending on the situation – like the mosquito or the comedian – various external stimuli produce responses that we find either amusing or annoying.

P:  But what about the internal stimuli?  What about your personal mindset and your ability to find something to be happy about internally?

S:  It sounds like you’re referring to an optimist versus a pessimist.

P:  Sure – if you don’t have it within yourself to be happy, what good will some external stimuli do?  It may distract you for a moment, but when it’s over, won’t you revert to your normal grumpy self?  And, if you’re normally cheerful, then won’t a temporary bit of grief be overcome eventually by your positive outlook on life?  Are optimistic people just happier than pessimists?

S:  Not if the pessimist is happy being miserable.

P:  Well, perhaps you’ve known people like that, but let’s hope those are just temporary setbacks.  I think a key to being happy is to simply want to be happy.  Perhaps Eric Idle’s Life of Brian song sums it up well enough:  “Always look on the bright side of life.”  Another key might be to simply enjoy or appreciate the moment, whether it’s a brief taste of ecstasy or a simple satisfaction.  A third key is to look for happiness in other dimensions of the world around you.  As Mark Twain said,

"Twenty years from now you will be more disappointed by the things that you

didn’t do than by the ones you did do.
So throw off the bowlines. Sail away from the safe harbor. Catch the trade winds in your sails. Explore. Dream. Discover."

Another strategy, for when life tosses that occasional curve ball is to take your mind off it by turning the tables on fate and do something nice for someone else.  As the Chinese proverb says: 

If you want happiness for an hour — take a nap.
If you want happiness for a day — go fishing.

If you want happiness for a month — get married

If you want happiness for a year — inherit a fortune.
If you want happiness for a lifetime — help someone else.

S:  All sound advice, but not so encouraging for a happy long-term marriage unless you’re planning to be helpful to that special someone else!

P:  Naturally!  And if we were all helpful to others, imagine what a happy place this could be.

Spending Time

A dialogue on how one’s perception of the value of time is influenced by one’s personal philosophy. 

Student:  Professor, have you ever thought about the idea of spending time?

Professor:  Sure, what aspect are you thinking about?

S:  I’ve been wondering why I don’t spend my time more wisely.  I have a finite amount of time and am in the sole possession of my time.  Given the finite nature which decreases constantly (and at constant rate), it seems that I should value and use it more wisely.  Clearly our time is worth more to ourselves than to others.  We sell our time to an employer, but are we getting good value? 

P:  Are you in possession of time?

S:  Sure – a friend will ask if I have a minute and I’ll stop and give him a minute of my time.  As a living being, I exist in this time and space and I share this experience with everyone else.  I have no choice but to “spend” time.  Perhaps more accurately, time will pass whether I get any value from it or not – beside the obvious value of just living.

P:  We consume time.  Time consumes us.  Isn’t “just living” value enough?

S:  That sounds like a riddle.  Maybe it’s as simple as that - the only value is in the living so why worry about it? 

P:  Time is a riddle, but I don’t think you believe the only value is in the living.  What about what it is that you do?  Time is a great unifying constant that we have no control over, but we do have control over what we do.  Why do you say that you don’t spend your time wisely?

S:  Because if I knew I had only days to live, I’d be doing something other than what I do from day to day.

P:  What do you do from day to day?

S:  Drive to work, sit at a desk, meet with people, solve other people’s problems, supervise employees, and help manage the company.

P:  So you provide a service to clients and co-workers that someone pays for.  What would you prefer to be doing?

S:  I think I’d spend more time writing and I’d spend more time with my loved ones and friends.

P:  Why?

S:  Because that way there’d be things to remember me by, things I’d written and memories shared by my loved ones.  And I’d have time to do things for them – to help them or give them advice.

P:  So, it would seem that you are placing a high value of this “spending of time” with friends and family and leaving behind remembrances of who you were.  Is there anything else you’d want to do if you knew your time was running out?

S:  I guess I’d wonder if I’d accomplished what I needed to do in this lifetime.

P:  Is there a difference between what you need to do and what you want to do during your life?

S:  Yes, I think so.  I think that what I need to do is unknown and tied to my spiritual development while what I want to do is associated with my corporal existence and the day-to-day and year-to-year goals and objectives I define for myself and with my loved ones.

P:  And if there’s a need for spiritual development, how would a physical being expect to achieve that if not through physical actions?  Even expressions of love or humor require physical actions.

S:  I agree, but there are limitless combinations of knowledge and experience to choose from.

P:  But if you feel that you need to learn and experience this dimension of reality in this window of time, then why worry about what you’re doing – isn’t the point to do something?

S:  I suppose, I just wonder if I’m doing the right thing.  Isn’t that natural?

P:  Other animals don’t have that problem do they?  They just go about the business of survival and procreation so as to live their lives and continue the species.  But to answer your question, yes, it is “natural” for us humans to second guess our actions.

I have three questions that will help you sort this out:

What is real?

What is good?

How do you know?

These three fundamental philosophical questions represent the basic inquiries explored in the areas of metaphysics (concerning the nature of things), ethics (concerning good and evil), and epistemology (concerning the nature of knowledge).  Another branch of philosophy, logic, deals with the arguments and reasons one uses to answer such questions.  By answering questions such as these, one can articulate a personal statement of philosophy. 

S:  Why should I delineate a personal philosophy?

P:  Because, whether it is articulated or not, one’s philosophy defines one’s worldview.  It is the basis for all thought and the context for all acquisition of knowledge.   By answering these questions, we gain wisdom; we reason out the nature of our reality – which may differ considerably from that of our neighbors; and we decide what pursuits are worthy or not.  Our philosophies affect every choice we make and every action we take.  Without an understanding of what is real, we would be helpless to function in the world around us.  Without a means to understand our thought processes, we would be unable to gain and apply knowledge and we would have no reason to believe that our thinking was anything other than a chaotic collection of images.  Without a means to decide on the right course of action, our lives would seem random and pointless. 

Each of us has a philosophy that we live by and that we use to understand and interact with the world.  In many ways, our philosophies overlap with those of our fellows.  But, in just as many ways, our philosophies draw us apart into separate realities of what is good and bad, beautiful and ugly, real and unreal, important and unimportant, meaningful and pointless.

S:  So what is meaningful and important for me to do may be pointless for someone else, I get that.  That doesn’t help me ferret out whether what I’m doing is what I should be doing.

P:  But your philosophy can.  When you ask yourself what is important for you to do, surely you get an answer.  You’re able to plan and prioritize.  You consider things that are obligatory and things that are optional.  You can choose to do unto others as you’d wish them to do unto you.  You can isolate ourselves from the world and live the life of a hermit.  You can take responsibility for your actions or you can choose to ignore the consequences.  There are untold permutations and possibilities, but your choices are informed by your world view, your values, your dreams and aspirations, your concerns, and losses:  all the experiences you bring to each moment.  How you interact with the world around you is completely up to you and is a function of who you’ve become through your interactions with the world around you.  Each action taken has an impact, however subtle, on who you become in the next moment.

S:  So it sounds like you’re saying it doesn’t matter – that whatever I do will help me learn and grow.

P:  That’s only partially correct because you’ve omitted the impact of your actions on others.  What I’m saying is that every thought and action does matter – to both you and the world around you.   There is some consequence for everything you do or don’t do.  We can’t sense all the myriad influences that our actions and words have, but if you’ve given some thought to what is real, what is good, and how you know, and then act accordingly, you are more likely to be happy about how you’re spending your time than if you have not.

Routines

Professor:  I suppose you’ve settled into a routine with your new classes by now.  I think routines are underrated.  It’s when our routines get thrown off that we miss them the most.  Think of a time when something’s happened that messed up your routine – an illness, an injury, a trip.  During those times I find myself thinking about how other people are able to go about their normal routines while I’m unable.  After a long trip or disruption to the schedule, I’m happy to return to my routines.  I like the dependability and predictability.  Recent medical news suggests that bodies prefer routine for optimal health too.

In contrast, randomness and abnormality is challenging.  It forces us to be more alert and less complacent (certainly not a bad thing).  And, if events take us out of our areas of comfort every now and then so that we appreciate things more, that’s good too.  Sometimes it’s fun to break the normal pattern and do things differently on purpose – like taking a different way home, the path less traveled, as Robert Frost said in The Road Not Taken:

Two roads diverged in a wood, and I –

I took the one less traveled by,

And that has made all the difference.

While it’s nice to break up the routine, our perception of routine really depends on how closely we attend to the details.  You get up, have breakfast, go to classes in a certain pattern, and do it again the next day.

Student:  Sure, on the macro scale, that’s true, but when we attend to the details, no two performances of the same routines are truly identical – just like two performances of the same Mozart sonata will exhibit subtle differences, at least to the trained ear.  At a certain level, Mr. Frost simply went for another walk.  If he’d carried a GPS unit and we wanted to drill down close enough, we’d see that it was a slightly divergent route, but still part of this “routine” of taking a walk.  At the macro scale – we’d just see that he was in the woods.

P:  Right, so we have differing perspectives, that of an observer and that of an actor.  From the actor’s perspective, each footfall could lead to a new experience – perhaps a twisted ankle, perhaps the avoidance of a beetle, or the sighting of a woodpecker.  From the observer’s perspective, depending on the proximity, there may be nothing different to report… “4-1-12, Subject R. Frost took another walk in the woods.  End of report.”

Let’s focus on the perspective of the actor for now.  We’ll leave the observers to their own routines for the time being.  Think of a prisoner in a jail, where the routine is dictated by others.  Even then, there will be subtle differences from day to day that may be missed by an unfamiliar observer.  Sounds, smells, layers of dust, wear and tear of garments and shoes, scuffs on the floor, all minute and perhaps inconsequential differences, but differences nonetheless.

S:  Sherlock Holmes would pick up on them.

P:  Right you are – he’s the fictional master of the subtle tell.  But again, he’s an observer and we’re focusing for the moment on the actor so as to explore the relative merits of routines and their converse.  Perhaps we’ll come back to Mr. Holmes later.

S:  Alright, well since you put it that way, what is the converse of routine?  Wouldn’t it just be randomness?  If the routine is to go from Point A to Point B, then “non-routine” would be to never reach Point B, correct?

P:  Purely speaking, I can’t argue with that.  But perhaps that situation presents a bit too much chaos to start with.  What if we assume that the task does get completed, but just by a different route or means for the time being?

S:  OK, we’re marching from Point A to Point B and considering the relative merits of different routes.  Perhaps I’ll skip instead of march or I’ll walk backwards.  What if I go with my eyes closed or in the dark instead of in daylight?

P:  In each case, you’ll experience the event in a slightly different manner and, depending on how astute you are, you may learn something different each time.

S:  Or I may just fall on may ass or bump into the wall.

P:  Stepping outside our routines does present some risk.  It may be trivial or it may be profound.  But, one can never presume that even the most mundane of routines won’t be affected by some unanticipated random event.  Perhaps a widowmaker happened to fall at the precise time Mr. Frost happened to pass along the same familiar path and clonked him on the head?

S:  Well, that certainly would’ve made all the difference.  He should’ve been paying attention.  I remember walking with friends along a trail in the woods one day.  Everyone passed along ahead of me on the same path, each one stepping over a snake without comment until I, bringing up the rear pointed out to them all, in their surprise, what they’d just done.  They weren’t paying attention either – they all saw it as a stick.

P:  Perhaps the point is that regardless of how routine or familiar a situation, pathway, or routine appears, there are always opportunities to perceive something new, we just need to be aware.  Perhaps by varying our routines within a prescribed set of behaviors that we’re obliged to perform to satisfy our societal and familial obligations, we open our senses to both subtle and dramatic changes that might otherwise be unnoticed.

S:  I’ll ponder that today and will try not to do anything foolish as I go about my routines.

P:  A stumble may appear foolish and still lead to wisdom.

Happy April Fools Day!

Chairs

Student:  If you could draw a chair better than anyone else, would it matter?

Professor:  If it was a special chair, perhaps.  Or, if chair drawings were rare and other attempts were feeble, perhaps.  Of course, others would have to see it first.  Just like the tree in the forest - falling with only its sister trees to hear, beauty is in the eye, or ear, of the beholder.

S:  Would the “specialness” be a function of the act of drawing, the final product, or both?

P:  I can anticipate that the process of creating the chair, assuming the product is exceptional, could be as interesting to observe as the final product.  If there was something special about the process – say that it was done with one’s eyes closed or completely from memory, it would be even more special.  Take the case of the memory artist who draws complete cityscapes.  The drawing itself is nice, but not so exceptional until you realize that it was done from memory and is highly accurate and detailed.

S:  So the process itself is really special?

P:  No, in this case, it’s the person (or the mind of the person) that is more special.  So what is so special about this chair?

S:  It’s an archetypal chair.

P:  So?

S:  It’s huge.

P:  And?

S:  It was drawn by a two-year-old chimpanzee with its eyes closed while eating a banana.

P:  Oh, well then that’s pretty special.  Yes, I see the banana smudge now.  What about that chair drawing over there?

S:  Oh, that little one is the only one of its kind.

P:  Why, can’t someone else do one like it?

S:  That’s hard to imagine.  It’s drawn with individual carbon atoms using an electron microscope.

P:  Why?

S:  Just to see if it could be done.

P:  The person is clearly more of a scientist than an artist.

S:  And the chimp?

P:  Clearly not a scientist, but never mind the chimp.  What about that colorful one?  It looks inviting and cozy.  I can imagine re-reading my favorite book in that chair.

S:  I like that too – there’s a film documentary about how the artist has cranked out hundreds of them with a silk screener, all different colors, but basically the same image.

P:  Hmmm, well – I guess I don’t really care how it was drawn ‘cause I just like the image.

S:  Should we care about how the chair was drawn or how the final image looks?

P:  Both can be of interest to the viewer – it depends on their perspective.  One may be more interested in learning how the creative process unfolded.  Another may be more interested in experiencing the end product.  Maybe your chair is a metaphor.  Maybe there’s more to your question than meets the seat of your pants.

S:  Like what?  Like hidden meaning or some cult thing?

P:  No, like some symbolism or a general truism that can apply to other situations.

S:  Other chairs?

P:  Sure - other chairs and anything else you can create:  a story, a painting, a flower arrangement.

S:  Does it have to be a creation?

P:  Yes, let’s say it’s a creation of some sort.  Someone’s creation is only of interest to someone else if there is some meaning, some value, some significance, some hook.  The first chair was ok, but when we learned that a chimp had done the second, it took on special significance.  Sometimes the meaning or connection is achieved by the work itself – it reaches out and touches people.  The picture speaks to you.  The sonata moves you.   Otherwise, it only holds significance if you’re particularly interested in the subject, e.g., chairs, or perhaps you have a connection with the creator:  my great grandfather made that chair or my four year old daughter made this one out if bubblegum.

Other times, we may have the opportunity to march along with the creative process and observe the thought process, the technique, the skill and appreciate how the artist crafts the chair, the vase, or the flower arrangement.  Such observation enhances our appreciation of what went into creating the object.

S:  I’m with you.  And?

P:  So it’s hard to predict what will resonate with people – what will reach out and touch them.  What may seem absurd to one could be sublime to another.  I think the point is to put your chair pictures out there if that’s what you feel strongly about.  If you do something with passion, that energy will be felt – at least by someone.  And if you don’t you’ll never know if you might have had something to share that others would value.

S:  I know what you mean.  There was a video of a girl singing a dopey song about the weekend that went viral on the internet.

P:  I know the one.  People really connected with that and it became popular.  I’m sure many thought it was silly, but I’m afraid that “Friday Friday” refrain got lodged in my head somehow.  It did make me laugh.

S:  I see what you mean.  Take a chance – put yourself out there and see what sticks.  What’s there to lose?

P:  Absolutely, in an age of information technology, we may as well be sharing as many ideas as we can.  Someone has to come up with some good ones!

S:  I think I’ll go draw a chair.

DON'T PANIC

Student:  Why do people panic?

Professor:  It would seem that the most direct answer is because circumstances that have a direct bearing on their health or well-being are beyond their control.

S:         Forgive me, but that doesn’t seem very direct.

P:         Would you care to offer another explanation?

S:         I think people panic when they’re frightened.  I think it’s in response to fear.

P:         Yes, I’d agree that people panic in fright and that may be rational – an instinctive fight or flight reaction that we label as panic.  But, doesn’t panic connote another level of response?  One that is perhaps irrational?

S:         Yes, I suppose we might consider someone who’s panicking to be a bit crazed.

P:         Of course the word originates from the Greek god, Pan, god of the forest who frightened people with scary noises and caused panic.

S:         So, I was right then – it’s based on fear.

P:         Well, in the classic sense, I suppose it is.  But we don’t often get frightened by forest sounds any more.  Perhaps we need to understand why people get frightened then.

S:         Maybe, but there are a million reasons.

P:         Yes, but do they all result in panic?  Can you think of a fear that doesn’t cause a panic?

S:         Sure, how about the fear of death?

P:         Yes, people naturally have a fear of the unknown and death is the greatest example.  But, we don’t see people rushing around in a panic about it do we?

S:         No, but it’s a universal truth that everyone understands so there’s no reason to panic.

P:         No rational reason.

S:         Do you think some people panic over death?

P:         No doubt, as the time draws near, people may panic over not having done things they intended or hoped to do, not having their affairs in order, etc.

S:         So, is time a factor relative to panic?  Does the degree of panic increase with the shortest of time?

P:         Not necessarily, I like the dictionary definition that says panic is “sudden uncontrollable fear or anxiety, often causing wildly unthinking behavior.”  Here we have two critical elements of panicked behavior:  “uncontrollable” and “unthinking.”  These behaviors would be more likely the result of terror than simple fear.  If you think of the range of emotions that encompass degrees of fear, perhaps we can get a fix on where panics kick in.  One might be: pensive, apprehensive, worried, startled, frightened, shocked, or terrorized.

S:         I follow you, but how would you describe the state of uncontrollable fear causing wildly unthinking behavior?  Are we talking about a panicked mob of people escaping a burning building or a bunch of investors jumping off bridges when the stock market collapsed?

P:         Both are good examples of panic and I suppose it’s that irrational element that captures the meaning best for me.  When one’s fears and anxieties overcome one’s ability to rationalize, we become susceptible to panic attacks.  And, when circumstances that have a direct bearing on our happiness or health are beyond our control, people may be unable to rationalize a course of action that helps them to escape the predicament.  Then they panic and most likely make matters worse.

S:         I guess that’s why Douglas Adams said, "DON’T PANIC."

P:         "DON’T PANIC," and "know where your towel is!"

Happy Spring!

Newer and Better

Professor, I’ve been wondering why our culture seems to always need to create something newer and presumably better.

Go on.

Well, why do we need a new model of car every year?  For that matter, why do we need 50 different models of cars – each one being tweaked each year?  I understand the marketing aspect – but are they really better?  Can’t we leave good enough alone?

Setting aside the observation that each auto manufacturer needs to distinguish itself from its competitors by establishing a given look and that there is a range in quality associated with the range in prices that consumers are willing to pay, I guess your point concerns our culture’s obsession with creating new and improved models of anything and everything, right?

Right.

But at the same time, many “new” products do reflect improvements, whether through ergonomic design of a tool, safety features added in response to tragic accidents, or changes that reflect a creative new approach to an old way of doing things.

Yes, I understand artistic creativity and invention, I recognize that tools and techniques can be improved upon and that feedback is a valuable tool in refining our abilities to do things well.  But, isn’t it possible that we reach a point of diminishing returns – that the effort invested in making additional “improvements” is not proportional to the value (or need for) those changes?

I’m surprised to hear someone who values the creative process so highly suggest that we needn’t strive to improve the way things are done.

No, you misunderstand, Professor – my question is why devote so much time and energy to making superficial changes when the resultant “improvements” are inconsequential.

Well, you’ve mentioned marketing as motivation for product “improvements,” that’s certainly one aspect of “newer and better” to discuss.  In our consumer-driven technocentric society, you must recognize the fundamental importance of there being new stuff to purchase.  You might find the 1996 essay by R. Cronk entitled, Consumerism and the New Capitalism of interest in this regard:  http://www.westland.net/venice/art/cronk/consumer.htm

Our tendency to seek technological solutions to societal challenges as well as capitalistic opportunity continues to produce cool stuff that most everyone wants to have, yes?  Do you find fault with the invention of the cell phone to replace land lines?

No, that is certainly an improvement in our ability to communicate that has benefited many people.  I’m more interested in time-tested technologies that need not be improved upon – I’d like to think that at some point we could say that we got something right.

Like the book for example?

Exactly – the book.  Now we have the electronic book.  Here’s a product that “improves” on over 500 years of book-making technology by placing at our fingertips hundreds of books in one slim battery-powered high-tech device.  Clearly, the device is useless if it can’t be charged – books don’t have that problem.  Clearly it’s more fragile than a book.  Clearly it will become obsolete within a couple years and have to be replaced by the next generation only to become another piece of non-biodegradable toxic material tossed in a landfill.

Let’s step back for a moment and consider the big picture.  You ask why it is that we have an urge to create newer and better.  Based on the examples you’ve given, I suppose you mean the creation of newer and better things, that is – items of commerce – items that can be bought and sold?

Not necessarily – it seems that people strive to enhance all dimensions of their lives.  Medical science is trying to understand how the brain works and how to genetically prevent disease, architects and engineers are trying to enhance the way buildings use energy, developing nations are trying to “develop,” and artists and entertainers are always looking for the next big thing.  Is this simply ambition?  And, if so – why are we so ambitious?

But let’s focus for now on material things as opposed to growth and the pursuit of knowledge, alright?

Alright, Professor.

And let’s think about the creative process.  Creation by definition implies that something “new” is made, does it not?

Yes.

And when one makes something new, one either develops a completely original thought, process, image, or thing or, one builds on something that is already familiar but with a new twist or “tweak” as you said.

I suppose so.

You sound unhappy about that.

Not really, but you haven’t answered the question about reaching a point of diminishing returns – that in many cases there is no value in making further enhancements to things that are already good enough.

You’re right.  To that point, if we agree that there is nothing inherently wrong with the creative process, then the decision to create something that may be of marginal value is a personal choice, is it not?

I don’t understand.

Well, if one chooses to create something purely for the joy of the creative process – whether a song that no one hears or a drawing that no one sees – it’s a personal decision whether or not to invest the time and energy to do so, correct?

Sure.  And a product that no one buys?

The same thing – a company may make a decision to make a product that no one wants and that’s their choice.  But, presumably not because they simply thought it would be fun.  They did it because they thought people wanted or needed it, or could be convinced that they would.  Perhaps it just didn’t perform as advertise or another company came out with something more intriguing at the same time or they just couldn’t attract enough attention for whatever reason.

Okay, I follow that logic.

Ok, now let’s think for a moment about durable material things that we all use – perhaps a cup or a screwdriver.  Such objects have a utilitarian function and they tend to last a long time.  When we need a new one, we go out and get one without a lot of thought.  Sure, we might want the cup to match the others we own, we might even want it to be made of a certain material.  The screwdriver should be of the correct style and size, but beyond the basic look and feel, there’s not a lot to think about.

Other items are more personal:  a garment, a writing tool, or a piece of furniture.  Choosing these things may require more thought, largely because there are a lot of choices.  Your question may be – why so many choices, especially, when one may not be any “better” than another.  I’d suggest that this first level of differentiation has mostly to do with personal preference (i.e., consumer demand).  It’s as simple as the choice between two identical cars – one white and one black.  If there was no demand for black cars, they would be rare indeed.  As rare it would seem as a paisley or polka-dotted car.

And now we get to the crux of the matter – objects that are “improvements.”  Here we consider changes to the operation, look, feel, and use of objects ostensibly because they are “better” than the prior version.  “Build a better mousetrap…” it’s said, “…and the world will beat a path to your door.”  Actually, the sentiment was expressed by Ralph Waldo Emerson in 1855 when he wrote in his journal that:

If a man has good corn or wood, or boards, or pigs, to sell, or can make better chairs or knives, crucibles or church organs, than anybody else, you will find a broad hard-beaten road to his house, though it be in the woods.

It sounds like Mr. Emerson was talking about quality, not innovation.

Yes, I agree.  His choice of the word “better” suggests to me that he recognized that people will go out of their way for a quality product.

I understand that Professor, I’d buy the Rolls Royce too if I could afford it because I’d expect it to last forever.  I’ve always thought it best to invest more up front for something that will last longer than a cheaper version that won’t be as serviceable, safe, comfortable, or enjoyable.

But it sounds like you don’t care much about “keeping up with the Jones.”

That’s true – at least to the extent of having the latest and greatest of this or that.  That’s exactly what I’m talking about.

And if there wasn’t a demand for the “latest and greatest” would there be any reason to produce it?

I should think not, unless the idea was simply to force it down the consumer’s throat.  And, I know I’ve felt that way.  We’re socialized to think that things have to be upgraded, enhanced, refreshed, improved, and refined and we buy into it.

What would happen if we didn’t buy into it?

Excellent question - think about it for next time.

Process - Postscript

Which brings us full-circle back to where we started, Professor.

Correct – except that in your prior summary of Process, you omitted what I feel is an important idea that preceded my conclusion, to wit:

‘Humans come of age are totally responsible for what they are and what they do.  We are free to do whatever we like within the limits of our several abilities.  We need only face the consequences.’  Which is to say that we have the freedom and ability to change the world around us but we have no one to blame for the outcomes but ourselves.

Well, that may be true, Professor, if we could control all of the outcomes from a particular sequence of events that our actions might set in motion, but we can’t.  Why do you say that we must be responsible?

We’re responsible because we can anticipate, observe, and respond if we choose to.  We’re not oblivious to the implications of our actions, unless we choose to be.  Do you sit in your car in the middle of a busy intersection and ignore the horns of your irritated fellows, or do you move so they can get through?  Better yet, do you anticipate that someone may be coming along before you have a chance to clear the intersection so it’d be a good idea not to block it?  Even still, do you recall from your age-old driver’s ed training that blocking an intersection is not permitted so you make a point to leave it clear automatically?  It’s true that we are unable to anticipate all of the possible outcomes, but where there is causation there is responsibility.  What I’m suggesting we should be applying is available knowledge and accumulated wisdom that helps us to anticipate undesirable environmental outcomes and to avoid behaviors that are likely to cause them.  Where medical science demonstrates linkage between eating red meat and heart disease or smoking cigarettes and lung cancer, we can choose to alter our behaviors to lessen the potential for such negative impacts.  When science demonstrates that inhalation exposure to benzene increases the likelihood of cancers in rats, we can choose to regulate sources of such emissions and protect the public from such exposures.

Or not.

Precisely – or not.  And in that case, who do we have to blame for our problems but ourselves?

And don’t you think that we have taken responsibility for our actions?

In some cases, certainly, but in many cases, I think the long-established TRADITION has been to ignore issues and “block the intersection” so to speak while the warning horns blare around us.  It’s just much easier to avoid problems than to face them unless we’re forced to, don’t you think?

Well, I think that many people have plenty of issues to be responsible for on a day-to-day basis and that it’s too hard to sort out issues that don’t elicit themselves obviously in front of their eyes – like global warming.  I think the tendency is to feel that the individual contributions to solving large-scale societal or environmental problems are insignificant.

Yes, individual efforts can be insignificant and unnoticed but as we saw in Tiananmen Square, they can also be very powerful.  As we’ve seen recently in the Middle East – profound changes can occur when people focus their attention on something important.  As we saw in July of 1969, when our efforts are focused by a clear vision, amazing feats can be achieved.

"A vision without a task is but a dream.
A task without vision is but drudgery.
A vision with a task is the hope of the world." - anon

Process - Part 8

I don’t know, Professor.  But does it really matter how my story plays out?  I mean with global population at about 7 billion people, what difference can my story make anyway?

Yes, I understand feelings of futility at such a daunting challenge, but I tell myself to make a difference for myself, my family, and those close to me first.  There’s no need to feel that a messianic quest to change the world in some dramatic fashion could be orchestrated.  I feel it’s more important to do what you can, where and when you can – the rest will take care of itself.  Ok, let’s bring this recitation to a close before we continue with what’s next.

Fair enough.   

“Humanity stands poised on a new frontier of evolutionary possibility.  An abyss is there to cross at cost, a door is there to unlock.  Humans have both the bridge and the key; they have awareness and the capability.  The question is, ‘do they have the courage?’

“Through higher levels of consciousness and behaviors consistent with them, Nature’s Process can express itself yet more fully through them.  Climbing this mountain, crossing this chasm, opening this door, can extend their sojourn within this phase of Process’ vastness to perhaps as successful a run as their brothers the cockroaches have enjoyed.  Without such awareness and behavior, little time remains before their slumber is rent and they are absorbed and erased from the scene – a very minor disruption in the remedial comings and goings of eternal Process.

“As one recent thinker suggested, ‘we have only ourselves and one another.  That may not be much, but that’s all there is.’  Another might reply, ‘that’s all there is, and that’s plenty.’  Therewith humanity must not only be content, but creative.

“It is most important to run out of gods, immovable national traditions, and other hindrances.  For better or worse, we are what we have called ‘God.’  It’s time we act that way and risk the terrible dangers inherent in the pursuit of the good unconditionally in ourselves and others – even to the extent of discovering the bad in ourselves and others.

“Humans come of age are totally responsible for what they are and what they do.  We are free to do whatever we like within the limits of our several abilities.  We need only face the consequences.

“If there be hope for mankind – if Process, once having become conscious, is to evolve into ever higher levels, the way must be shown by those who have demonstrated a capacity for a knowledgeable partnership with Nature in the making of things, yet whose making is softened by a wiser intuition that keeps them from making too much, too fast, and at too great a cost.   

Process - Part 7

“But Process, meanwhile, works intuitively within them, pulling them toward interdependence and union and mutuality.  Their minds are beginning to comprehend that they are not alone…that they are part of everything and everything is part of them…and that all things (including them) depend dynamically upon all other things and contribute to the common ‘becoming’ that is the nature of Nature.

“The trouble is that they don’t have a story as yet to tie up all these new insights and emerging intuitions.  But good stories tend to take on a life of their own once the key elements are discovered.  The question is, what story will unfold from these elements?

1. There are only superficial differences among human beings, whatever their gender, race, politics, socioeconomic status, educational background, or religion.
2. People are not superior in kind, but only in degree from other forms of life which are their co-sojourners in the endless dance of evolving Process.
3. This awareness is not demeaning, but rather magnificently enhancing – they are related directly to everything and the Whole of which they are a conscious part, has a common destiny.
4. Without embarrassment, they can embrace a dog and call it ‘brother,’ and lie in the moss and call it ‘cousin.’
5. The human preoccupation with tearing from Nature the wherewithal to fabricate things necessitated their learning how Nature works and what they have discovered discloses to them the truth that they might better work with her than against her.
6. Humanity emerged from the cosmic process as a unique intelligence, they were not placed here as a special creation.
7. There is no sharp boundary between transcendence and immanence - everything is interpenetrated by everything else.
8. Reality is infinitely relational.
9. All things are constantly in a state of becoming and that change, not stasis, is a primary state of things.
10. Nature’s processes are remedial and transformative.
11. Nature is not willfully coercive nor consciously hateful, it is one, balanced, organic Whole.
12. Embedded in Nature is directionality:  the principle that preserves the identity of each thing while it simultaneously undergoes change and modification, an observation that has them rethinking the notion of a Supreme Cosmic Plan.

“In possession of this information, they’re doing pretty well with dogs, moss, and whales, and tree toads, and landscapes, and dolphins and seashells, and hybrid tomatoes, but they’re still very cautious with their fellow humans.  Most of them don’t believe the old stories anymore, but they think they do, and insist on building their lifestyles, societal styles, institutional styles, and national styles upon them.  They know the dangers inherent in openness, in giving, in telling, in feeling, in touching, in listening, or experimenting too much.  Their tendency is to think it safer to give only conditionally, to tell only partially, to do as little as possible, to feel only sparingly, to listen selectively, and to touch only if necessary. 

“One recent false prophet summed up the anti-interdependent inclinations with the phrase, ‘nice guys finish last.’  Another said, ‘being nice is how a person pays his way into the party if he hasn’t the guts to be tough or the class to be brilliant.’  They both miss the point, but it sounds right because that’s what they’ve learned through harsh experience.

So let me stop here before I conclude the recitation of Process, and pose a question to you:  what story will you write?

Process - Part 6

But, we’re getting a bit ahead of the story.  Let’s return to Industrialized Humans.

 “They had no plan but the one they made in the morning, to be discarded at noon.  And they took pride in being impertinent and reactionary and never crossed their bridge till they came to it.  And they were perpetually on the move, but they mostly moved over and not with what was around them, until they had pretty well covered everything green with pavement and railroad tracks, and telephone lines and sewage disposal plants, and runways, and parking lots, and shopping malls, and hamburger stands which sold billions because one had to stop neither to pick them up nor to eat them, and that suited people on the move just fine.

“But the voices of poets and philosophers who had tried to learn from Nature rather than conquer Her, were eventually heard.  One had built a shack by a pond and spent considerable time in jail for not paying his taxes.

“Another asked that we:

‘Think me not unkind and rude

That I walk alone in grove and glen;

I go to the god of the wood

To fetch his word to men.’

“Another

‘…retired into a silent bay…’

‘…to cut across the reflex of a star…’ and

‘…reclining back upon my heels,

Stopped short, yet still the solitary cliffs

Wheeled by me – even as if the earth had rolled

With visible motion her diurnal round.”

“One had watched, ‘a noiseless, patient spider.’  Another told of ‘The sniff of green leaves and dry leaves, and of the shore, and dark-color’d sea-rocks, and of hay in the barn.’  Still another told of us ‘stopping by woods on a snowy evening.’  And perhaps they all heard ancient Varuna say:

‘I move with roaring, howling, and radiant might,
I move with the infinite and nature’s powers.
I hold the love of the Lord of Lords, I hold
The fire of the soul, I hold life and healing.’

“But most people did not hear this voice.  Or, if they heard, they did not embrace the message and so they continued to do to Nature, not with her.  But where once they were prouder of this power over Nature than they were appreciative of Her wonders, they’ve begun to recognize that their science and technology and fabricating genius combine with their unique personal contradictions to produce the premier danger that they and the rest of Earth Process have encountered thus far:  the trinity of science, technology, and ethical contradiction.

“And they have become afraid once again.  Once they were afraid of their powerlessness.  Now they are afraid of their power.  They realize that they have been conscious in Process and resident on this expression of it for only a moment of cosmic time.  And they realize that their terminal potentialities have existed for only the last split moment.  They realize that answers offered by their charming old stories are inadequate, but they are afraid to pursue new ones and their implications.  As far as they are concerned, their ancestors did well enough with the old stories – they provided a sense of supremacy and meaning and direction and destiny.  They set humans apart and made them “special.”  They even released people from ultimate dependence upon their earth footing, and that release freed them from responsibility for other aspects of Process around them.  After all, their stories told them:  ‘this world is not our home – we’re just a passin through.’  They thought, ‘our real home is up there somewhere.’  And, so it is that industrialized humans’ selfish individualism and tendency toward separation persists in this behavior.  They’ve been raised on competition, hierarchies, and getting to the top and what happens here in the meantime doesn’t really matter because The Earth is so incredibly vast.”

What “ethical contradiction” are you referring to, Professor – and why is it so dangerous?

I’m talking about an ethical dilemma caused by the awareness that time-honored TRADITIONS, behaviors they were convinced were right and just, are producing results that they know to be wrong and unjust.  For example, the knowledge that through their scientific and technological manipulation of the world to achieve material satisfaction (something they’ve been told is good), they are altering the environment into which they and countless living things have evolved and are dependent upon now and into the future (something that is most certainly wrong).     

And you say that while they recognize this, they’re afraid to replace the old TRADITIONS, I suppose we could say philosophies too, with new ones because they’re unable to accept the implication that their lifestyles and behaviors are unsustainable?

Correct, their selfish individualism encourages them to destroy more, consume more, and discard more.  They manipulate the world around them to create short-term material satisfaction while discovering little of the beauty and spirituality of the world around them.  They seek to have the most toys while destroying community, interdependence, and personal interaction.   Ironically, their pursuit of individual satisfaction promotes lifestyles and behaviors that are unsustainable for themselves and the whole.