Good Morning, my Angel. Another full night's sleep brings more balance. I am feeling pretty well rested and ready to go back to Pearl's. I will pick her up from church at 1pm. I see your post this morning - those are some very interesting concepts presented, the type of philosophical concepts that could be expanded upon and looked at from many angles. I know I myself have been accused of being relentlessly upbeat, but with me, it's just the way I am, it's not put on.
Happiness is such an open definition, because what is it, really? Does it arise from something one does, or from one's natural disposition? For instance, I can read what I find to be an interesting book, say the one I am currently reading, "Axis Of The World" by Igor Witkowski. What am I actually doing? Sitting in a chair or lying down, and filling my mind with information that interests me. Others might find the same information entirely dreary, and would put such a book down in favor of another pursuit. But what I am actually doing when I read, or take photographs, or any pursuit that produces a form of pleasure or excitement in me, is experiencing happiness in one of it's many forms. What is that happiness? Oh my goodness, it's such a combination of things. I think happiness (or wholeness, or balance, or any word you prefer) begins with the physical, at least in my experience it does.
As a child, as I have said, I was always blessed with good energy and health, and as we know, the curiosity of a child to the brand new world around him or her can bring endless days of wonder and discovery. Something as simple as feeling the sun's rays on one's skin can produce a feeling of subconscious joy in a child. Children have simple pleasures, too, in which much of the joy (i.e. happiness) experienced is subconscious, meaning they don't understand why a certain activity or experience is making them happy, such as splashing water in a swimming pool, or blowing a soap bubble from a ring. They only know that it is making them happy. They are free from analysis. Such is the joy of childhood.
But it all starts with good physical health and energy. An enthusiastic child can suddenly turn unenthusiastic when stricken with a cold. Then he will experience many things; physical impairment, resulting in lack of energy and discomfort. He will also experience disappointment at "missing out", as his friends continue to play outside. He might become frustrated in his disappointment, leading to more than just physical discomfort but sadness as well, if he were perhaps missing out on a planned camping trip, say, or a trip to see a ballgame. But, if he is a resilient child, of a naturally positive nature, he will recover from his disappointment with a fair amount of ease, and perhaps find a substitute interest in a coloring book, or a program on TV. Then, when he regains his full health and energy, he is right back in his natural state : Happy (or whole), playing with his friends and interested in the world.
So where does the happiness or wholeness in such a child begin? Is it in his genes? Is it astrological? Does it come from his Spirit or Soul? One could go further and ask, if reincarnation is a reality, if past-life experience is a factor in the emotional makeup of a newborn child. Parenting is without doubt an enormous factor, one we can identify with certainty. If we add in the possibility of the other aforementioned factors, we might have a complex equation for the formula of childhood happiness. My brother and I are interesting examples. I am just shy of four years older than Chris. We were both small before any trouble began in our family, so it can be said that family strife was not a factor in our early childhood. And yet, we exhibited two distinct personalities, shown in the way we reacted to life around us. I was just as I am now, Mr. Upbeat (and I know some people find it obnoxious, but I can't apologize for being me, lol), and Chris was always contrary. In fact, Dad would point that out, in a good natured way. Before the trouble started, my Dad was the happiest guy you ever met. And we were always going places, having fun. I always acted with enthusiasm, and Chris usually with what you might call an even-handed doubt. "Hey Kids, we're going to Placerita Canyon", or "would you like to see a movie"?, or "did you like the beach"? It could have been anything. And I would have been much more likely to respond enthusiastically and Chris to the contrary.
Now, does that mean Chris wasn't having any fun, that he was unhappy? Looking back, I always remember him having a blast, too. Maybe not in everything we did, but mostly.
So we see that two brothers, both deriving enjoyment from the same experiences (different levels of enjoyment perhaps, but enjoyment all the same), expressed that enjoyment differently, one with quiet exuberance (cause I was/am shy), and the other with contrarianism, or "agreeable doubt".
Knowing what I know now, I chalk those differences in expression straight up, mostly, to astrology. I am an Aries and Chris a Capricorn. Of course, our full charts would reveal much more about the push-and-pull of the various planets on our personalities, but much can be discerned from the Sun sign (Rising, too), and if you ever think astrology isn't real (which many do, I don't think you do), just observe the most outward, basic personality traits of your closest friends and family members, and you will see how real it actually is. I could get into the whole subject in-depth, but it would be way too big a tangent to go off on, and this is already a subject I could write all day about. I have lived a lot of happiness (wholeness if you prefer) and unhappiness (from sadness to terror), and I myself have tried to analyse every last detail of the subject.
But back to me and Chris, we can sum up by saying that two brothers, influenced by the same, basically untroubled parenting (in the early years of our childhood), both experiencing basically good health (i.e. physical happiness or wholeness), reacted to early pleasurable experiences with two distinct personalities, showing that, in some form, astrological or spiritual or genetic or past-life, or a combination of those factors, a child's personality - and thus the way in which they react to stimuli - probably is inborn.
So, to start with childhood, in my opinion, though I believe all children are born with an innate desire for spiritual and physical happiness/wholeness, I believe that it manifests differently in different personalities, and I believe that a part (large or small but perhaps large) of a child's personality is brought with him or her from the womb, through the above-mentioned genetics, astrology (which is huge), and possible past-life experience.
So, while all children desire happiness or wholeness, they approach and react to stimuli in different ways.
Sorry if I am going on and on about this, but it is a very interesting subject!
But if happiness is partly physical, and if we can say that it is easier to be happy/whole when one is physically whole (hence the holistic philosophy of medicine and healing), then we must also say that a large part is spiritual, emotional and psychological. A person could be in the best of health and energy, and yet be entirely unhappy. I know because I've been there. When the trouble started in my family, I was about 8 years old, maybe 9. My Dad lost his position as vice-president at Deluxe. He had been on the upswing ever since he got to Hollywood, had been part of the Hollywood Chamber of Commerce, the SMPTE, was travelling to New York all the time. Suddenly it was all gone, the result of a botched laboratory job on some film negatives from the movie "Hello Dolly" with Barbara Streisand. The director (and Barbara, too) had a fit, threatened to sue the lab. They had to shoot scenes over again, it cost millions of dollars. It wasn't my Dad's fault, but a man who was a negative developer. These things happen in labs, but Hollywood is Hollywood and so heads were gonna roll. Dad being head of management, he got fired, much like a football coach loses his job if the team isn't doing well. There was more to it than just "Hello Dolly". Dad had an aggressive side to his personality, which is in part what got him where he was in the first place. But if Dad thought someone was an A-Hole, he'd tell 'em if he got upset, or tell somebody to "f" off. But at any rate, he lost his job, and until that point, at age 49, everything in his life had been on the upswing since he was 17. At that age, he had lost his Mom to tuberculosis, and he'd never had a father, so from age 17, it was just Dad and his grandma. Then at 21, he went off to WW2, and when he came back, his grandma was gone too. So he had experiences in his life that I can't even fathom, and they helped form his acceptance of and reaction to "happiness stimuli" and it's opposite.
Dad was a Gemini, the twins, and that can manifest in a bit of a split personality. And the Dad I knew as a small child - a perpetually enthusiastic man - became depressed at losing his prestigious job. And he began to drink, and take prescription pills. When I was little, I don't ever remember him drinking anything but soda pop, but by 1969, he could really put away the cocktails. And when he got drunk, he could become extremely unpleasant. We lost our "big White House" in Northridge (I may have posted a photo or two) and moved to a more modest house a few blocks away, which we rented instead of owned. To us kids, it wasn't that much of a big deal, but to Dad it was devastating. And by 1970, even though he had a new job at MGM (not as prestigious but still good) Dad was putting away pretty close to a fifth of Vodka a day. And as often as not, his drinking was the cause of tremendous unhappiness and deep depression in our home. I can write about it now with equanamity and great love for both my parents, because in the long run, all our troubles were overcome, and that was through the love and grace of God, and the love between us as family members. Now, when I think of my parents, which is daily, I am immediately filled with joy because I now know them as Spirits, which is to say I know them in their purest form, and it is a form I remember from when I was a small child. So I would also say that love is unquestionably a factor in happiness/wholeness, and love can overcome anything.
I have gotta get ready in just a bit to head to Pearl's, and I hope I haven't gone overboard in telling my story or making a few observations, but it's a fascinating subject. I'd like to write even more later, but if I've already written too much, just tell me to stop, lol. :)
Challenges to happiness/wholeness can really start to manifest in the teen years and early adulthood, and I could go on and on about that "Ad Nauseum", which as you know is my Punk Rock name. But, I'd like to continue later with maybe a few observations, or continue the story since I began it.
Whenever I say to you, Elizabeth, that "I hope you are having a good day", or "You are awesome" or "aren't these wonderful days", etc., etc., I want you to know that I am never just repeating feel-good maxims by rote, or just throwing bland enthusiasms at you. Everything I write is from the heart, and it's from the heart because you put it there. So love is a major part of wholeness, and happiness too.
And, I do hope you are having a good day, or even a great one. :)
I Love You and will be back later this afternoon or early eve (6:45) at the latest. :):)
2:30pm : I have a little free time now, so I'll write a little more. Reading back what I wrote this morning, I see that my tendency to jump around through various subtopics is present, as usual. I apologize for that. I attribute it to my brain getting ahead of my fingers, We think faster than we can type, at least I do, and when a subject interests me enough to express myself at length, my brain immediately starts to fire up and think of every subtopic I want to cover, and so I start typing, and the story kind of goes all over the place.
Rereading Mr. Mackay's words, I have a feeling they may be a comment taken from an interview, or part of an essay, and therefore it would help, for me, to read them in their larger context. As-is, the concept seems wide open, and I must say (don't kill me!) that I find aspects I disagree with. If I were to go through it sentence by sentence, I'd say that I think I understand what he means about "attacking the concept of happiness". But then he says that "the idea that everything we do must be in the pursuit of happiness" is a dangerous idea, and that it has led to a disease, a "fear of sadness". I think that this is a case where, if I were interviewing him, I'd ask him to elaborate. I agree that many people in modern society have a fear of experiencing anything sad. I have seen that in convalescent homes and hospitals, where so many receive no visitors. But I would at the same time disagree that it is a bad idea for "everything we do to be in the pursuit of happiness", and here is such a place in his comments where I would ask for elaboration.
Let's say I am at the hospital, and I am visiting a relative in poor condition, who isn't going to live long. Naturally, this is going to make me sad. How, then, is it a bad or dangerous idea for me to try to bring some light (meaning happiness or joy) into the situation by, say, reading to my sick relative, or just sitting with them? That would be a case where I am "pursuing happiness" in a very sad situation, in order to bring that happiness to both the sick person and also myself. To pursue happiness in such a situation is to alleviate, in some small measure, pain and sadness.
I see what Mr. Mackay may be saying there. I could give a possibly better example, using the hospital metaphor again. Let's say two other people, besides me, have the same relative in the hospital. And, in "pursuing happiness" above all, at all costs, they choose not to visit the sick relative, but to plan a vacation instead. That might be more what he is talking about, a "fear of sadness" or avoidance of sadness. In that example, cruelty would also be a factor, because their happiness might be at the cost of the sick relative, who might never see them again. So his statement there is wide open to different interpretations, and like I say, I am sure he means it in a particular context, one that is not entirely clear in that short comment.
As a whole, however, I do believe that the pursuit of happiness is a natural desire in humans, and not a dangerous thing, except possibly in the context he may mean it. As to avoiding sadness, out of "fear" of that emotion, while I believe that sadness can be dodged or temporarily bypassed - say, by going on vacation instead of to a hospital visit or funeral - I do not believe that sadness can be totally avoided. In my Myspace days, I wrote a couple long blogs about the phenomenon of what I call "stuffing" sadness, or other negative emotions. In those blogs, I was referring to you-know-who, because she was a person who would hold everything inside, and never deal with anything sad or negative. It had to do with her upbringing. Ergo, she was trying to "avoid" sadness, possibly out of fear, and partially because of how she was raised, but what I know for sure is that she was not able to avoid it. By stuffing it down and holding it in, and trying to defeat it by sheer will, or by pretending it didn't exist, the sadness only grew worse, until she ultimately acted out in all kinds of ways that were very unhealthy. So, that's why I wrote those older blogs about "stuffing".
Mr. Mackay goes on to attack some current techniques of pop-psychology, "feel-goodisms" like "writing down three things that make you happy" and so forth. I agree with him there, that such techniques are mostly BS. They might be harmless enough, and I can't see anything really wrong with writing Daily Enthusiasms on paper. If you've ever seen the Stuart Smalley character on old re-runs of Saturday Night Live (Youtube him), that's what that was all about, the BS of "daily affirmations". I personally think pop-psychology in general is a bunch of BS, but that's just me. It's just another form of Guru-ism, someone telling others "how" to be happy, and while that might be necessary for some, I certainly do not need it. Real psychoanalysis, as derived by Freud and improved upon since then, might be effective in getting to the root of deep-seated and subconscious psychological problems, but those cases are more rare. God bless the psychologists, but in my opinion, most folks could save their money. And of course, there are excellent psychologists and metaphysicians, priests and ministers, and counselors of all kinds. I am mostly talking about the "cheerleader" type of "pop-psychology" that is mass marketed nowdays. So I agree with Mackay there.
But then he says, I paraphrase, that "happiness" is not the default position. And I could not disagree more. I would wonder where he comes up with such a conclusion, from a philosophical standpoint. It sounds there as if his own background may have an influence on his position, because it sounds very Calvinistic, very austere. I would say the opposite, that happiness is not only our birthright, but that - all things being equal - a newborn child (a spirit made flesh), is going to tend toward, and seek, happiness (call it by any name you like). Obviously, in places like the Third World, you are going to have newborns that never know happiness from the moment they are born, or never know much happiness. But, to put it conversely, I don't believe that any spirit comes into this world seeking to be unhappy. If conditions were well and equal all over the world, and no child were ever born sick, or in hunger, then you would see all infants, through tantrums and growing pains and the rest, tend towards happiness. With a few deeply disturbed psychological exceptions (meaning a very small number of children who might be born as "bad seeds", evil from the get go with no other explanation), I believe that all children are born into this world seeking love and happiness. Heck, it's not just humans; all creatures are born this way - dogs, cats, rats, frogs, giraffes, hippos, et al. Everybody and everything seeks, from the moment of birth, a peaceful, enjoyable existence. Much of that peace and enjoyment comes about from love. But I disagree with Mackay when he says that happiness is not a birthright or the "default position". I could not disagree more. Harmony is the natural tendency in nature; all things experience change and turbulence, but equilibrium is the eventual end result.
Of course, once again it would help to know the context in which he is making his statements. If he is referring to what I will call a kind of "grinning idiot" happiness, where everything must be all giggles all the time, or a constant adrenaline rush, I agree with him. We are producing a decidedly non-intellectual, non-curious, non-contemplative or reflective society with an idiotic popular culture. That is pretty obvious. I hear so many people, just in my daily doings, talking jaggedly, in slang, at 100 miles per hour, with poor vocabularies, and then the person to whom they are speaking will respond with that Beavis And Butthead type of rat-a-tat laughter. Those are "grinning idiot" conversations, a result of the influence of modern popular culture, and you tend you encounter them everywhere nowdays, unfortunately.
Mackay may, in part, be referring to these types of people, and also to non-contemplative society at large. But I must disagree when he says that nothing can be learned from happiness, and that only sadness can act as a teacher. He says, for instance, that victory doesn't teach us much. If he is talking about modern idiots, I agree. That is why you hear the chant "USA! USA! USA!" at the Olympics and other sporting events. You also have idiots killing each other at baseball stadiums in arguments about local teams. But those are morons. An intelligent, well-balanced person can learn much from victory, such as how to be magnanimous, or how to be a leader, or helpful to others. How to set a good example.
Sadness can teach as well, though I have to admit I'm not sure what. I was incredibly sad when I lost my Mom. That was the saddest I've ever been in my life. I don't know what it taught me, except that I love my Mom. But I already knew that.
I think, mostly, that Mackay is referring to "grinning idiot" Western Society (and it's not just America but all the west, in Europe, too) and now consumerism is taking over China and Russia, as well). He is also referring to "feel good" instant-relief pop-psychology, and it's influence.
I will finish up by saying that I think it's very important to always try to identify a source of unhappiness. If you are having a bad day, what is causing it? Is it something overt? There is an old, somewhat funny saying : "Hell is other people", and it can be true that a lot of "bad days" can be caused by how we react to someone else's energies or interactions in our lives. If we have a mean-spirited boss or teacher, or a co-worker who is an a-hole, that can lead to bad days. I know from experience that parents can contribute to bad days, too. And also to great days.
But if you are by nature a person who tends toward happiness or contentment, a bad day can very often be the result of interacting with unhappy or unpleasant people. I disagree with Mackay when he says that our bad days are contributing to our "wholeness". That again sounds Calvinistic to me, in the "teach you a lesson" kind of way. The only lesson I learn from a bad day, is how to avoid the same type of day in the future. In that sense, it is contributing to my wholeness by making me smarter, more aware of oncoming problems. But that goes back to what I said earlier about identifying sources of unhappiness, and shutting them down.
I have to head back to Pearl's now, and again I hope I didn't ramble too much. I do so because, in your case, Elizabeth, I know you to be a basically happy person. Happy as in "content". We both know that happiness is not just a continuous thrill-ride through life. But I tell you what I know out of a deep love for you, just to offer my observations. Because of my own experiences in life I have an interest in the subject, especially because I know the good news : that we come out the other end intact. I also know that, with your intelligence and understanding, you already know most if not all of the things I say. If ever and whenever you have a bad day, you can always tell me about it. I don't know if that's why you posted the Mackay comment, but if so, I am always ready to listen. Maybe you posted it in response to my last night comments about "seeking the deep internal", etc. In any event, I love you like we are One Being, even though of course we are both individuals. But remember, "one and one don't make two, they make One". That's by The Who.
Well, gotta go back to Pearl's. I will write yet more this evening (no!! not more, Ad! :) ) but in a different blog. That's really all I have for today on this subject, though I can tell you more of my family story if you ever want me to. A lot of it you know already. Anyway, back in a while!
You Rule, Awesome Lady. Always remember that! :):)
No comments:
Post a Comment