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 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 Jimmy Hendrix? 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: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,