I just endeavored to do something I've never done before: write a letter to myself. I have journaled for years, and in a certain sense it is like writing a letter to myself, but there is a difference. I have always written my journal entries in first person. "I this" and "I that," but I wrote this letter in second person (the only permissible time to write in second person). I found that I was quite harsh on myself, taking myself to task for all of my unmet expectations of 2006 and how I have reacted to my perceived failures.
It was one of the most fruitful and beneficial activities in which I have ever engaged. I gained more from that than hours of counseling sessions with an overpaid psychologist. It helped me crystalize in my own mind the things that have been troubling me for the past month or so, as I have approached my one year anniversary in Dallas, at my new company, in my new relationship, etc. There are a certain number of frustrations that accompany anniversaries of this sort, but I have a better idea about why I have had such a struggle in coping with this one year mile marker.
What I learned in the end was that I have much more to be thankful for than not, and I need to do less fixating on those things I wish were different and rather rejoicing for those things that are so wonderful. I'm pretty thick-headed, and this very thing has been suggested to me before, and I sadly dismissed it out of hand. I'm a fixater by nature. But no longer will that excuse suffice. Excuses in general do nobody any good.
"I'm like this" or "I'm like that and therefore that's why I engage in X stupid behavior" doesn't cut it. The status quo cannot be an acceptable choice for those who believe that progress is essential to fulfilled human existence. We cannot make excuses for the way we behave, whether it is in regard to things we do or in regard to things we don't do. I won't say I've learned my lesson, but I am making progress. That's something, at least. It means I'm still alive, which is better than nothing, eh?
Tuesday, December 19, 2006
Wednesday, December 06, 2006
Genuine Freedom
Having been involved in politics in the past, and being a rather avid spectator in the political arena, I have heard a lot of opinions about what constitutes freedom. Those on the Right have one view, those on the Left another. The religious sectarians have yet another view about freedom, and that differs from one faith to next, with almost no two demonination or religion having the same one.
For example, people of a libertarian philosophy argue that freedom means freedom from government involvement and government regulation. I am free insofar as there are no political restraints to my behavior. The socialist would argue that quite the contrary, freedom means freedom from economic need, and one cannot be free unless he has all of his basic necessities provided.
The Fundamentalist Christian would say that freedom means freedom from fleshly desires of certain kinds, mostly those that are sexual and involve alcohol. Buddhists would argue that freedom is freedom from all desires completely.
The Philosopher would argue that freedom is the power to exercise choice and make decisions (as opposed to being bound by determinism). The street definition of freedom is probably something to the effect of "doing what I want whenever I want," which is awfully vague and entails perhaps all of the other definitions provided above.
I'm not certain that any of these definitions adequately provides an explanation of what genuine freedom truly is.
Perhaps the religious definitions come closest to reality, in the sense that I believe Freedom is ultimately a Spiritual Condition. Yet I do not believe that it entails the freedom from one particular thing. Rather, it seems that genuine Freedom stems from the ability to exist and co-exist in a world of conflict without being a party to that conflict. Among other things, it is a liberation from our biological condition to first preserve the self, it is failure to be commanded by the desire to see the individual elevated above other individuals and above the rest of humanity. Nothing could better express liberation and freedom than this.
For what is it that can constrain me if I am not bound by some biological and psychological need to acquire things from other people and at the expense of other people. In a world of limited resources, I am constantly in a competition for the consumption of those resources, whether they are physical, emotional, or psychological. If I am freed from the need to fill those obligations to myself, then I am free to love and help all of those around me. What could be more liberating than this? Certainly not the fulfillment of basic physical needs, for one will only be unsatisfied and want more. Certainly not the fulfillment of emotional needs, for the same circumstance will result.
The Marxist is wrong--you cannot eliminate need by trying to fulfill it. It takes the elimination of the root, the Ego. This flies in the face ultimately of the Marxist and Capitalist alike, for the Marxist seeks a political solution and the Capitalist an economic one. The psychologist is incorrect for she argues for the establishment of the self. I want to be freed from the self. For if I am free from looking out for my own needs and instead am concerned only with the needs of others, then I am perfectly fulfilled at all times, for others will always be in need.
For example, people of a libertarian philosophy argue that freedom means freedom from government involvement and government regulation. I am free insofar as there are no political restraints to my behavior. The socialist would argue that quite the contrary, freedom means freedom from economic need, and one cannot be free unless he has all of his basic necessities provided.
The Fundamentalist Christian would say that freedom means freedom from fleshly desires of certain kinds, mostly those that are sexual and involve alcohol. Buddhists would argue that freedom is freedom from all desires completely.
The Philosopher would argue that freedom is the power to exercise choice and make decisions (as opposed to being bound by determinism). The street definition of freedom is probably something to the effect of "doing what I want whenever I want," which is awfully vague and entails perhaps all of the other definitions provided above.
I'm not certain that any of these definitions adequately provides an explanation of what genuine freedom truly is.
Perhaps the religious definitions come closest to reality, in the sense that I believe Freedom is ultimately a Spiritual Condition. Yet I do not believe that it entails the freedom from one particular thing. Rather, it seems that genuine Freedom stems from the ability to exist and co-exist in a world of conflict without being a party to that conflict. Among other things, it is a liberation from our biological condition to first preserve the self, it is failure to be commanded by the desire to see the individual elevated above other individuals and above the rest of humanity. Nothing could better express liberation and freedom than this.
For what is it that can constrain me if I am not bound by some biological and psychological need to acquire things from other people and at the expense of other people. In a world of limited resources, I am constantly in a competition for the consumption of those resources, whether they are physical, emotional, or psychological. If I am freed from the need to fill those obligations to myself, then I am free to love and help all of those around me. What could be more liberating than this? Certainly not the fulfillment of basic physical needs, for one will only be unsatisfied and want more. Certainly not the fulfillment of emotional needs, for the same circumstance will result.
The Marxist is wrong--you cannot eliminate need by trying to fulfill it. It takes the elimination of the root, the Ego. This flies in the face ultimately of the Marxist and Capitalist alike, for the Marxist seeks a political solution and the Capitalist an economic one. The psychologist is incorrect for she argues for the establishment of the self. I want to be freed from the self. For if I am free from looking out for my own needs and instead am concerned only with the needs of others, then I am perfectly fulfilled at all times, for others will always be in need.
Monday, December 04, 2006
A Reflection on the Unspoken
Thou goest and returnest to His leeps
Like lightning: thou dost ever brood above
The silence of all hearts, unutterable Love.
--Alfred Lord Tennyson
An important lesson in business as in life is recognizing the power of the things left unsaid and excluded. In a negotiation, it is more valuable to consider what has been left out of the deal than the jots and tittles that have been so meticulously written into it. I frequently hear people say "what is wrong with this picture?" and most often the answer to that question is that this or that thing is missing.
Yet, sometimes a thing needn't be uttered or written or illustrated in order for it to have an effect. Indeed, sometimes that which is left unsaid is the most powerful. I said to one of my business partners today "give me some credit," laughingly, to which he replied "I give you a lot more credit than you think, I just don't always tell you about it." It made me think seriously about this subject of the unuttered and unspoken.
Tennyson's term "unutterable love" takes the notion even further. Beyond just that which isn't spoken, it is that thing that cannot be spoken at all. The early 12th Century monk Bernard of Clairvaux wrote the hymn "O Sacred Head, Now Wounded," in which he says this "What language can I borrow, to thank Thee, dearest friend, for this Thy dying sorrow, Thy pity without end." Bernard illustrates the difficulty of finding words for those things one considers to be of the highest level of love or gratitude.
It can be easier if we are consantly affirmed and re-affirmed in ourselves through the verbal expressions of others. This is not only unnecessary, but sometimes even counterproductive. For we in certain cases cannot put accurately into words the way we feel about others. It is not so much a matter of magnitude, for we certainly have words to express magnitude. We have words like "tremendous" and "grand" and even "infinite." Instead, it is that there can be so much complexity and subtlety, that truly makes the emotion special and unique, that we do not have enough shades of words in which to formulate the fullest expression of how we feel.
I am personally a verbal person. The fact that I blog on a regular basis in large quantities is perhaps proof enough of this. I have always prided myself in my ability to provoke a range of emotional responses from people using both the written and spoken word. I am finding, however, as I mature, that this is not always sufficient or even preferrable.
There is something beyond the word, beyond even the thought, that only some intangible energy can communicate. It is something of the Spirit, something genuinely metaphysical. It is that feeling, the overwhelming touch that one gets when walking away from the kind words or the bright smile or the twinkle in the eye. Sometimes it is felt from across the room, or across the span of oceans.
This intangible expression flows from the most genuine of love, the most real emotion, and the most verifiable of compassions. I also desire most intensely to more joyfully recognize and receive this kind of affection, for it is that kind that is given without ill motive to manipulate or hurt or to achieve any other hidden agenda. Perhaps all of this is why H.L. Mencken so brilliantly quipped "Love is the triumph of imagination over intelligence."
I am thankful for those in my life who communicate these things to me, and I hope I communicate them back.
Like lightning: thou dost ever brood above
The silence of all hearts, unutterable Love.
--Alfred Lord Tennyson
An important lesson in business as in life is recognizing the power of the things left unsaid and excluded. In a negotiation, it is more valuable to consider what has been left out of the deal than the jots and tittles that have been so meticulously written into it. I frequently hear people say "what is wrong with this picture?" and most often the answer to that question is that this or that thing is missing.
Yet, sometimes a thing needn't be uttered or written or illustrated in order for it to have an effect. Indeed, sometimes that which is left unsaid is the most powerful. I said to one of my business partners today "give me some credit," laughingly, to which he replied "I give you a lot more credit than you think, I just don't always tell you about it." It made me think seriously about this subject of the unuttered and unspoken.
Tennyson's term "unutterable love" takes the notion even further. Beyond just that which isn't spoken, it is that thing that cannot be spoken at all. The early 12th Century monk Bernard of Clairvaux wrote the hymn "O Sacred Head, Now Wounded," in which he says this "What language can I borrow, to thank Thee, dearest friend, for this Thy dying sorrow, Thy pity without end." Bernard illustrates the difficulty of finding words for those things one considers to be of the highest level of love or gratitude.
It can be easier if we are consantly affirmed and re-affirmed in ourselves through the verbal expressions of others. This is not only unnecessary, but sometimes even counterproductive. For we in certain cases cannot put accurately into words the way we feel about others. It is not so much a matter of magnitude, for we certainly have words to express magnitude. We have words like "tremendous" and "grand" and even "infinite." Instead, it is that there can be so much complexity and subtlety, that truly makes the emotion special and unique, that we do not have enough shades of words in which to formulate the fullest expression of how we feel.
I am personally a verbal person. The fact that I blog on a regular basis in large quantities is perhaps proof enough of this. I have always prided myself in my ability to provoke a range of emotional responses from people using both the written and spoken word. I am finding, however, as I mature, that this is not always sufficient or even preferrable.
There is something beyond the word, beyond even the thought, that only some intangible energy can communicate. It is something of the Spirit, something genuinely metaphysical. It is that feeling, the overwhelming touch that one gets when walking away from the kind words or the bright smile or the twinkle in the eye. Sometimes it is felt from across the room, or across the span of oceans.
This intangible expression flows from the most genuine of love, the most real emotion, and the most verifiable of compassions. I also desire most intensely to more joyfully recognize and receive this kind of affection, for it is that kind that is given without ill motive to manipulate or hurt or to achieve any other hidden agenda. Perhaps all of this is why H.L. Mencken so brilliantly quipped "Love is the triumph of imagination over intelligence."
I am thankful for those in my life who communicate these things to me, and I hope I communicate them back.
Sunday, December 03, 2006
Patience vs. Progress
It takes patience to appreciate domestic bliss; volatile spirits prefer unhappiness."
--George Santayana
I write a lot about the notion of patience. It is one of the virtues espoused by Paul when he talks of the fruit of the Spirit, "Love, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self control." Of those eight, I have problems with seven on an almost daily basis, but patience is by far my greatest difficulty.
I ran upon this quote by Santayana and it struck me. I recently had the displeasure of seeing an employee of my company self destruct, and I think Santayana's insight is quite applicable to that situation. I find a lot of people really do prefer unhappiness and drama. There have been people in my life over the last few weeks who are utterly miserable, and they are so because they want to be so. It's easy for me to fall into this trap too, because of my lack of patience. I'm impatient with so many things in my life.
Yet at the same time, patience is not a panacea, and frequently can merely be dressed up complacence. Thomas Edison, in fact, notes that "Restlessness and discontent are the first necessities of progress." Patience, then, is not so much a contentedness with the way things are, but an acceptance that they will not instantly be as one desires. Consequently, the ideal environment for progress is one that balances discontent with the status quo with an understanding that there is a trail that must first be traversed before the finish line is reached.
There is a great danger, in the patience-pushers, that they are not properly motivated enough to change things that really aren't working. This could either be because they do not recognize that what they are doing isn't working, they ignore that fact, or they are just resigned to thinking that nothing can be done about it.
In the philosophical discipline, especially within the context of the field called "Practical Reason," two of the models of decision making are "utility maximizing" and "utility satisficing," where the latter represents those people who take things as being "good enough" rather than "optimal." There are many times and ways that we are benefited by going with what is "good enough." Choosing a toothbrush, picking something to eat, deciding on what to wear, etc. are times in which making the effort to maximize utility might be unnecessary.
But when it comes to important facets of life: spiritual issues, relationships, and career matters, it is imperative to maximize our utility, push the envelope, challenge ourselves, and in a sense "living beyond our means." Only when we actively step outside of our comfort zones will we ever grow, expand, and learn.
So few people are willing to live outside of their comfort zones, and so they will have intermittent spurts of progress. It is not that these people, ipso facto, cannot be or are not happy, for they certainly can be. In fact, people can be happy without ever experiencing progress. But happiness is not a light switch. It is not an on-off button. There are divergent gradations of happiness, and those higher gradations can only be achieved through the difficulties that accompany progress.
Perhaps this whole notion can be summed up with the last stanza of Longfellow's poem "A Psalm of Life,"
Let us then be up and doing,
With a heart for any fate,
Still achieving, still pursuing,
Learn to labor, and to wait.
--George Santayana
I write a lot about the notion of patience. It is one of the virtues espoused by Paul when he talks of the fruit of the Spirit, "Love, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self control." Of those eight, I have problems with seven on an almost daily basis, but patience is by far my greatest difficulty.
I ran upon this quote by Santayana and it struck me. I recently had the displeasure of seeing an employee of my company self destruct, and I think Santayana's insight is quite applicable to that situation. I find a lot of people really do prefer unhappiness and drama. There have been people in my life over the last few weeks who are utterly miserable, and they are so because they want to be so. It's easy for me to fall into this trap too, because of my lack of patience. I'm impatient with so many things in my life.
Yet at the same time, patience is not a panacea, and frequently can merely be dressed up complacence. Thomas Edison, in fact, notes that "Restlessness and discontent are the first necessities of progress." Patience, then, is not so much a contentedness with the way things are, but an acceptance that they will not instantly be as one desires. Consequently, the ideal environment for progress is one that balances discontent with the status quo with an understanding that there is a trail that must first be traversed before the finish line is reached.
There is a great danger, in the patience-pushers, that they are not properly motivated enough to change things that really aren't working. This could either be because they do not recognize that what they are doing isn't working, they ignore that fact, or they are just resigned to thinking that nothing can be done about it.
In the philosophical discipline, especially within the context of the field called "Practical Reason," two of the models of decision making are "utility maximizing" and "utility satisficing," where the latter represents those people who take things as being "good enough" rather than "optimal." There are many times and ways that we are benefited by going with what is "good enough." Choosing a toothbrush, picking something to eat, deciding on what to wear, etc. are times in which making the effort to maximize utility might be unnecessary.
But when it comes to important facets of life: spiritual issues, relationships, and career matters, it is imperative to maximize our utility, push the envelope, challenge ourselves, and in a sense "living beyond our means." Only when we actively step outside of our comfort zones will we ever grow, expand, and learn.
So few people are willing to live outside of their comfort zones, and so they will have intermittent spurts of progress. It is not that these people, ipso facto, cannot be or are not happy, for they certainly can be. In fact, people can be happy without ever experiencing progress. But happiness is not a light switch. It is not an on-off button. There are divergent gradations of happiness, and those higher gradations can only be achieved through the difficulties that accompany progress.
Perhaps this whole notion can be summed up with the last stanza of Longfellow's poem "A Psalm of Life,"
Let us then be up and doing,
With a heart for any fate,
Still achieving, still pursuing,
Learn to labor, and to wait.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
