The Changing Face of Happiness

Apr 112012
 

For modern man, form increasingly dictates the substance of thought. Recall from the previous post, Happiness is a Balance, that depends on sustaining optimum internal and external conditions. Since forms are human constructions and are therefore imperfect, it stands to reason that an optimum external situation will be one that contains the least possible quantity of forms necessary to achieve this .

Forgive me if this sounds like abstract gibberish, but it conceals what I consider to be a profound realization about modern life: Our ability to be happy is affected, not only by the quantity of certain inputs, but by the way we perceive and value the things in and around us. This introduces the idea of various capacities for happiness, which I seemed to be downplaying before. For example, one who possesses a deeper appreciation for physical beauty would undoubtedly experience greater pleasure when viewing an exceptional painting than one who doesn’t.

But the previous post was attempting to illustrate the concept of optimum happiness. This doesn’t mean that differences in preferences or abilities don’t exist among individuals. It does, however, assume that under optimum conditions each individual has the capacity to potentially experience happiness to the same degree despite these differences. Whereas one who has greater artistic capacities might derive happiness from certain activities, another endowed with more of an athletic drive might feel just as happy in other pursuits. What’s important here are the conditions affecting their ability to fulfill their potential. The states that their overall ability to experience happiness will be approximately equal as long as this potential is fulfilled.

This is where the idea of forms comes into play. In addition to obvious physical barriers that can prevent people from reaching their potential, there are any number of perceptual and psychological encumbrances that exist. I’m referring to these as forms.

To illustrate my concept of optimum happiness and how forms can affect it, imagine a great hall filled with people dancing. There’s nothing extraordinary about them. Just regular folk enjoying themselves. Nothing fancy. Count Basie is in the background as everyone swings to the groove. No races or political parties here. No brands, no pretense, no bullshit. The light is dim but not so much that you can’t see the shine in peoples’ smiles, the light in their eyes. It’s a good night and everyone’s feeling the vibe. Everyone has their own space. No one feels jealous or envious or afraid. There’s no need. Not when you’re feeling this good. Are you digging this scene?

Maybe you’ve been fortunate enough to have experienced something similar. If you have, then you know that the moments that encapsulate it are about as good as it gets. This is happiness, baby. And you wish it would never end. You’re feeling good. But you’re not feeling good just because of what’s inside you. You also feel good because you know everyone around you is feeling good too. Somehow this contributes to the magic. It makes the happiness deeper. People aren’t just experiencing something; they’re sharing it; and the sharing feeds back into it and adds to the experience. This is the balance I was referring to in the previous post. This is, I think, is an example of optimum happiness. It’s utterly magical. When the evening draws to a close, you can almost feel a sadness–perhaps even a nostalgia–knowing that it’s slipping away and there’s nothing you can do as you fall back toward normal existence.

But let’s hold this scene in our imaginations for a moment. Don’t fall back yet. Imagine you’re still out on the dance floor in the middle of it. Remember, the scene is pure and simple. It’s just you, the other people, the night, and the music. You’re not a person that exists to  be seen or desired by others. You’re simply doing and being. Nobody cares about the clothes or shoes you’re sporting. No sponsors; no labels; no stereotypes. The situation is as devoid of forms as possible. Nobody gives a shit how much money you make or what kind of car your drove here tonight. Situations, like this don’t exist much anymore, but try to imagine that it does. This is freedom from the tyranny of others’ preconceptions. The music is your only guide.

To illustrate how forms can degrade, or even ruin, the quality of happiness in this scene, imagine that we introduced a form to the dancers that didn’t exist before. Imagine that we introduced the idea of classes. The closer to the center of the dance floor one was, the more prestigious they became. Those on the edges were the least prestigious.

Imagine how this would affect the conditions. Now, instead of being equal participants in an atmosphere of joy, each person believes himself to have a greater or lesser share of prestige than those around him. Viewed through this lens, perception changes. , , intrude upon the dance floor. People’s perception of happiness is redirected. The understanding that happiness is coming from the total situation itself is diminished. There’s a force emanating from the center. Now, the goal is to get as close to the center as possible. Presumably, those at the center will feel happier than those who aren’t.

But this is a false happiness. It’s based on the augmentation of ego in that one feels superior to those who are in a more peripheral position. We’ll call this the ego boost. We all know the feeling. When you head gets bigger. Clothes and auto makers rely on the ego boost a great deal. They push it like drug dealers. Many of us get hooked on it. We come to crave it in our daily lives like Starbucks and sugar.

But introducing prestige to the dance hall adds other things too. For one, it adds fear. Fear is a powerful tool because it cuts both ways. Those fortunate enough to be closer to the center feel relieved that they’re not as peripheral as some. This is the form of fear that we usually think of as jealousy. Now you will make sure to guard your position lest it be taken by all those inferior to you. On the other hand, they’ll work harder to stay where they are or advance out of fear that they might loose their position. Fear is both a carrot and a stick whereas the ego boost is pure straight .

Where fear goes, her twin sister envy is sure to follow. The potential also exists for not merely fearing the loss of position but envying those who are in what is perceived to be a superior position. Relief and appreciation for what you have can easily loose its value when one considers how much better off others are.

Placing an artificial form, like a prestigious center, in a situation where it never existed completely changed the dynamic that created the balance of happiness (or optimum happiness as I previously referred to it). There’s nothing new here. The purpose of religion has been to help people to maintain this balance while eschewing conditions that will undermine it. The problem with our modern world is that it is making it increasingly difficult to promote the balance. In a world that has become dependent on unlimited economic growth, it eventually becomes irresistible for companies to use whatever means they can to urge people to purchase things they otherwise would not have any need for. Even if this means using fear, envy, and jealousy. Think about how much fewer Mercedes or Prada would be purchased in the absence of prestige.

Tags: , , , , , , ,

Happiness is a Balance

Mar 232012
 

Ok, as we left off in the previous post, What does it take to be happy?, have finally saved up enough loot and have escaped to their tropical paradise. Here we have it: Hollywood’s great formula for happiness: boy meets girl; boy gets girl; boy and girl get a lot of money; and, finally, escape from the rat race. Elements of this formula compose many of the Madison Avenue constantly bombards us with.

Sex, money, security. What could be more basic? We instinctively yearn for all three. In the modern world, increasingly the assumption is that the most important is money because, given enough of it, one can obtain the other two. Moreover, the conventional wisdom holds that the more money we have, the more we’ll be able to pursue all the things that make us happy. I think if most of us dig down deep enough inside, we’ll be forced to admit that we probably, despite the cliche about money not buying happiness, believe this logic.

For many of us, we pursue money as a proxy for our well-being. As practical creatures, most of our actions in the abstract, specialized worlds in which we live, are guided by the assumption that more money will inevitably lead to more well-being (or happiness). In fact, if you come right down to it, this is the single greatest shared belief of the modern world. More money = more happiness. So ingrained it is, that we may as well call it what it is: Faith (and that, mind you, is Faith with a capital F).

So widespread and unquestioned is this Faith that even the agnostics and atheists among us cling to her breast like suckling babes. But is there truth in Her? Or is it merely emptiness dressed up like a goddess?

Perhaps She’s real enough for people who don’t think. Maybe enough if all you need to be happy is a full belly and a spent condom. But what about the others? Those who seek deeper things in life. The poets and philosophers. Those who seek more. What do people like , , or Kurt Cobain have to tell us? Talented, sensitive people who had all the money, fame, material things anyone could ever hope for? Were they happy? Shall we ask , Mr. , and ? Tell us Elvis, were they–were you–happy? If so, when in your life were you happiest?

I submit to you that if all Bonnie and Clyde have when they reach their palm tree island is a sack of loot, that they won’t sustain happiness. The cliche turns out to be right, after all. Money, alone, can’t buy happiness. As a might say, though money is a necessary condition for happiness, it isn’t sufficient.

The next concept of the I’d like to introduce is two-fold. It has to do with the inner and out conditions necessary to bring about a state of happiness:

For an optimum state of well being (or happiness) to exist, it’s not enough for a person to maintain the correct internal balance, they must also co-exist with an external environment in which all necessary factors are present and balanced.

The first part of this means that an individual must possess some balance of resources that, for his particular makeup, are required for optimum well being. I know it sounds like I’m hedging a bit, but, suffice it to say, that the balance will be a little different for each person. For most people, this will involve certain parts health, appetitive satiation, freedom, security, etc.

A condition I’ll call certain attention to and is not always salient in contemporary discourse is the condition under which one is able to fulfill his potential. Particularly nowadays, this is one that is sorely lacking. It is hard to imagine a person achieving in the absence of this condition.

The external aspect of the happiness balance is a little less obvious. It states that even if a person achieves their own internal balance for optimum happiness, it will elude them if they do not exist in an environment in which all of the external conditions are not in balance.

The external balance is less subjective than the internal balance. In many ways, important aspects of this balance have to do with a healthy environment: clean air, clean water, beautiful, flowing, spaces. Space is very important. In short, the things that landscape architects and Japanese artists refer to as harmony. , who designed Central Park in Manhattan, knew how well space, particularly open space, was important to the psychological well-being of people who spent much of their time in close conditions.

Yet one of the most important environmental conditions of happiness has to do with the internal well being of the other human beings around us. The cliche misery loves company is important to note here because happiness loves company too. This leads us to one of the most under-appreciated, yet simplest, truisms of human existence. It is also a paradox that hangs like a dead weight around the necks of the greedy. Simply put, a person, no matter how well balanced their internal conditions are, cannot achieve optimum happiness unless those around them have also achieved it.

For those of you who require an example, consider how difficult it would be for you to feel your happiest if, for example, all of your loved ones were miserable and sad. An extreme example, no doubt. But I would broaden this out to its fullest logical point. Optimum human happiness is not attainable unless every single living human being has achieved their optimum internal balance. The world is far more inter-connected than we suppose. A violent act ripples from one end to the other. A thought, an idea spreads like a virus, programming us, shaping our views, feelings, words, and on and on, rippling back and forth.

This isn’t an entirely foreign concept. It’s been taught in many ways. If Christ would have us remember just one element of his teaching, it would be this. Yet, how much in our day-to-day lives do we consider it? In this way, we’re Cain’s offspring, repeatedly forgetting that the violence we do to our brother comes back to us again and again from one short life to the next.

If we consider a previous concept of the happiness principle, namely that each human being, regardless of ability, possesses equal capacities for happiness, then we must, after considering the foregoing, ask ourselves if we aren’t all bound (each and everyone one of us) to each create the conditions necessary for optimum happiness? Not simply bound morally, but bound because it’s necessary. For ourselves; for everyone.

Finally, if we’re all equal in happiness, who has the right to undermine someone else’s? For the happiness principle says if I hurt you, I also hurt those around you; and in the end I ultimately hurt myself. A circle is a line that is connected at both ends. The world is a sphere and a sphere is a multidimensional circle.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

What does it take to be happy?

Mar 192012
 

I think most of the developed world has been having a pretty limited conversation when it comes to formulating questions about the conditions necessary to bring about happiness. I don’t mean to suggest that people don’t think about happiness very much. I believe pretty much everyone believes  they want to be happy. But I think the breadth and scope of modern man’s ideas concerning what will make him happy have been pared down considerably. For many of us, ideas of happiness have been shaped to a great extent by the needs and language of commerce.

The advertising discourse in which we’re immersed informs us that we need more or better, bigger and newer, sexier or stronger. It lures us into the trap of valuing our lives by material possessions.  Before we know it, the yardstick  becomes more like a riding-whip urging us on in the pursuit of more and more until our possessions become synonymous with who we are. At this point, the tangible transmogrifies into a representative of  even the most intangible aspects of our lives, such as our personalities. In other words, the material aspects of our lives become a measure by which we value who we are as people. This can be viewed as the ascendancy of the tangible over the intangible (the psychic, emotional, and spiritual). Children, in our society, learn this lesson very young on the school playground when they’re made fun of or shunned for not wearing the right clothes, shoes, or for not having the latest smartphone.

But it’s all a fake-out. Like idols of times past, we’re fooled into believing that the possession of a certain thing will somehow bring us closer to the idea(s) and underlying reality with which it’s associated. The implication is that the tangible thing will deliver the ultimate intangible we all thirst for–happiness. This view of the world places less emphasis on achieving happiness through the individual’s personal development of their own ineffable qualities, like fortitude or grace, through internal struggle and triumph than the dogged pursuit of material wealth at whatever cost is required. The shift is away from a focus on a spiritual journey balanced between the internal and external worlds to one wholly transfixed on the brass ring the individual apprehends with snorting, bleary-eyed intensity. Consequences be damned. Everything will fall into place once the brass ring is finally grasped.

In time, practice dictates thought; form influences substance: giving rise to the mistake that the outer is the path to the inner. But this misconception isn’t unique to modern times. What’s new is the breadth of the types of physical things that we allow ourselves to be judged by and the extent to which we allow ourselves to be judged. Unfortunately, our judges don’t stay on the playground. Like the Furies of antiquity, they pursue us unceasingly. And there are more places for them to exist than ever before: Facebook, LinkedIn, not to mention the tv that lives in our phones, computers, and automobiles. They surround us on all sides relentlessly encroaching  on what scant refuge remains.

Unless you have certain possessions by certain ages, the Furies claim you’re less worthy than all the countless peers who do. The judgement is self-evident. You either possess the thing or you don’t. You’re either acquitted or found guilty. It’s an excruciatingly bright line. The discourse doesn’t allow for any appeals based on any of the intangibles you possess. It doesn’t matter how noble or generous or kind you are. What matters is whether you make a certain amount of money or have a prestigious job. Then, of course, the car, clothes, house, address, etc., etc, etc. You either have them or not. You and everything that your skin encompasses will be judged by these things and these things only.

For what kind of world would we inhabit if the defendant were allowed to bring arguments about their inner beings into play? Next thing you know they’ll expect you to prize them just because they’re nice. Or magnanimous. But what cost is there to these things? It’s not as though they need to be purchased? These intangible qualities aren’t constrained or regulated by money. Anyone willing to strive for them can possess them in varying degrees. Such a society, as even kings and queens of old knew, has little economic value. We live in a world whose economy literally depends on production and consumption levels that, in turn, require the type of mind-set and motivations outlined above.

So here we are with our material possessions and our misery and little else. We come back to the question of what does it take to be happy? How much and what kind of material wealth is required? Moreover, what else is required? This is a trickier question. Our movies usually end at this point. Thelma and Louise; have just about made it. Just about to make the big score. Then they can retire to palm trees and paradise. If they can just get there, they can finally consume and have happiness.

So, let’s assume Bonnie and Clyde make it. Like Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, they go riding off south of the border into a sun-drenched future. Will the palm trees and sand be enough for happiness? Or can we just as safely assume sunburns and hangovers? What, other than sex, money, and sun, will Mr. and Mrs. Clyde need to be happy? The next post in the series will take this up.

Tags: ,

Equality in Happiness

Mar 122012
 

The second major concept of the holds that all people are equal before the throne of the .

This is a radical, perhaps revolutionary statement. It runs contrary to fundamental values inherent in many of the world’s leading contemporary societies. Most of us have been taught to believe that talented, hardworking people can possess more happiness than those less well endowed because they have more resources to purchase the things that will supposedly satisfy their needs and wants. Modern economics has been rooted in this idea for a long time.

As the merchant class came to replace the old nobility, the idea that the most virtuous in society ranked at the top (because of their proximity to God) was replaced by a more technocratic one: those with greater abilities would, like cream, rise to the top of society. Hence, a society ranked by the type of work one performed. Higher level jobs commanded higher pay because they supposedly deliver greater value to society. There is a moral justification that should be noted: those with higher level jobs deserve more happiness because they give more to society than workers below them.

Money may not be able to buy love, but the merchant class’ vision of society definitely believes that it can buy happiness. Capitalism the way it’s practiced today requires this belief in order to function properly. For example, financial exchanges depend on the fiction that profits can infinitely grow because they result from the sale of goods and services that are supposedly demanded by an unquenchable desire for more happiness.  This fiction suspends the disbelief of much of society in general–not just the financial community–even though economists recognize the law of diminishing marginal utility.

It’s essential that most members of society believe the fiction. Just imagine for a moment what would happen to the global economy if everyone suddenly believed that packaged mass marketed foods were no longer desirable and should immediately replace those that are locally produced? Or if everyone stopped watching tv? Either one of these actions would make the recent financial crisis look like a walk in the park.

We’ve just defined two fallacies necessary for developed nations’ economies to continue to function as they have up till now: 1. that markets enable people to perpetually pursue and realize a higher conception of happiness; and 2. that society, by and large, fairly rewards members based on their contributions to it.

But does anyone really believe this claptrap? Show me a man who believes he can buy happiness in a store and I’ll show you one doomed to a life of disappointment. And if society fairly recompensed its members based on the value they bring to it, teachers and social workers would be millionaires.

All people are equal before the throne of the happiness principle.

This means that all human beings, regardless of their physical or mental characteristics pretty much share the same capacity for happiness. Whether someone picks strawberries for a living or someone else trades stocks, they each were born with relatively the same potential to experience happiness. This begs the question whether there are any conditions that justifiably limit a person’s ability to obtain happiness based on social ranking? Furthermore, if both types of workers have equal capacities, what exactly will most significantly impact their ability to experience happiness? What is justifiable on a moral basis? If the acquisition of goods beyond a certain point has no real impact on happiness, isn’t much of our economy and resources wasted on unnecessary production?

These questions will be examined. But first we need to ask about the types of things that make a person happy. That will be the subject of the next post. All we’ve done in this one is allude to some things that don’t.

For now, suffice it to say that as long as conditions affecting all people’s capacity for happiness are equal, there is nothing individuals can do to experience more happiness than their peers. In other words, once an optimum state is achieved in relation to your capacity, the happiness principle won’t let you go beyond. All attempts, no matter how much is consumed or purchased, will be in vain. No matter how many wild parties, exotic places, or sensual pleasures. All will be wasted once a point is reached.

No tags for this post.

The Happiness Principle

Mar 122012
 

I’d like to introduce you to the . What is the you ask? This is a good question and is very likely one of the most important questions you’ll ever ask. For when it comes down to it, what could be more important than your happiness? The only answer I can think of is my happiness, since my happiness is certainly more urgent to me than yours. Or is it?

But I’m jumping ahead. Our happiness, even though we’re strangers, you and I, are really quite dependent on each other, if truth be told. More on this later. For now, let’s get back to fundamentals.

I think its pretty much universally accepted that, when it comes down to it, nothing is more important than happiness. Where would religion be without it? What would be the point of Christianity without Heaven? Buddhism without Nirvana? In fact, I don’t think it’d be too much of a stretch to say that happiness is the whole point of religion. Who’d want to live forever in the absence of happiness? That would be like…well, we all know what that would be called. There’s a four letter word for that and it usually starts with a capital.

So, if we’re all agreed that happiness is extremely important, how come there’s so little of it? C’mon, don’t look so shocked. Be honest with yourself. How much happiness do you see? How many happy faces did you experience today? Maybe the small children playing in the park? But just wait until they grow up a little. They’ll get wise pretty fast.

I think it’s not unreasonable to propose that our second established point here is that even though happiness is the most important resource in the world it’s unfortunately in very short supply. As paradoxical and unseemly as that may seem, it’s the truth.

Now that we’ve cleared up those points, let’s thrust forward to the first major concept of the happiness principle.

1. Human beings are capable of experiencing only so much happiness. No matter what you do, you will not be able to enjoy more than your allotment or rise beyond your capacity.

This doesn’t mean that you can’t do certain things to optimize your ability to be happy. It’s pretty obvious that there are inner and outer forces that can affect your happiness level. Less obvious, however, are the levers and adjustments necessary to create the optimum conditions for happiness. It’s these that’ll be the focus of upcoming posts about the happiness principle.

For now, let’s content ourselves with the idea that we’re, individually speaking, equal in the eyes of happiness. There is only so much happiness that anyone, rich or poor, short or tall, can experience within a given society. I mean society in its broadest possible sense: a defined system in which a population exists, including their physical location, economy, laws, religion(s), art, etc.

You cannot run or hide from the happiness principle. You can meditate or pray and hopefully find your individual, optimum level within the society you may be fortunate or unfortunate enough to inhabit. But that is it. You cannot buy or drink your way out. The happiness principle is a universal law and cannot be denied.

The question is how much and what kind of happiness will the principle allow? Are there different aspects of happiness that should be noted to fully understand and appreciate Essential Happiness? Moreover, what are the conditions necessary to bring this state about? This latter question is where we, meaning the history of our happiness impoverished race, have failed so miserably. This, too, will be covered in the upcoming posts on the happiness principle.

For now, as the poet once sung, don’t worry, be happy.

No tags for this post.