Mobilizing (The Pursuit of Happiness)

This is all the product of the past month and a half or so, spending time with new people, thinking differently:

• I will actively pursue happiness.
• I CAN do whatever I set my mind to do.
  
• Whatever I find that makes me happy (and is ethical) I will do.
  
• I will consider new ways of finding happiness.
• My happiness is a product of my own determination to be happy
• My circumstances WILL NOT dictate my deeper happiness
• So far as I can change my circumstances, I will use them to drive my happiness
• Circumstances which are not under my control are not relevant.
• My happiness will not depend on the decisions of those around me.
• I can change myself
• ... requiring help from time to time
  

Related conclusions:

• Not pursuing happiness results in the oppression of one's own spirit
• People don't survive long without hope
  
• Advising people is utterly useless if they never implement your recommendations
• People who cannot execute a decision are passively deciding to give up their own happiness/success/welfare

I'm implementing these (new) ideas.

First off, I mean to make time to relax. I've found (at a friend's bachelor's party) that responsible/moderate consumption of alcohol is (at least for the time being) a highly effective way of freeing myself, if even for a moment, from a few burdens. I'll watch movies/TV with my full attention, not thinking about work/programming/stress* at the same time.

As soon as I get my school work in order, I'll be spending more time with my wife and several friends -- they are more important to my sanity than I originally understood, and being as cerebral as I am, I tend to isolate myself. That will have to change.

And a few other things. As I recall them, I'll update this post.

There's more to this, on 'higher' levels, relating to social and philosophical observations. It's rather interconnected though, so explanation is somewhat complicated. I've found it hard to express some of the relationships between these ideas (hope, happiness, motivation, etc) for some time now. Hopefully I'll finally write these succinctly soon.

I'm in flux at the moment. Things are getting interesting ;)

Separation of Church and State

First off: I maintain various beliefs in accordance with the foundational teachings of the dominant religion of my culture, on the basis of my experience and (for what it's worth) reason. None the less, I appreciate and principally agree with the idea that "government should not prefer one religion to another, or religion to irreligion." [wiki]

Until now, I thought the separation was merely a measure to allow/enforce the government's oblivion to religious disagreements (as you'll see in that wiki reference above, it apparently isn't oblivious...), such that it could not force any person or population to participate in any religious activity nor affiliate with any such institution or ideology. That's tolerable and appreciated, since my views differ from many people around me, and we all wish to remain free without raising social tumult about it.

Today it became clear to me that there's more to this than meets the eye -- or at least met mine at first. I do not suffer the delusion that the founders were overtly religious, nor that they were opposed to religion -- to my knowledge they all had Christian upbringing of some sort, but many had become 'deists' [wiki] and diverted in other ways. Thus I submit it's reasonable to believe that since the founders had some consciousness of something spiritual, and since their writings address matters of spiritual significance to (different populations within) society, the writings themselves may also embody an understanding of something spiritual (or at least philosophical).

To summarize the observation and assumptions I incurred today:

• The benefit of society is served by means of exercising morals (utilitarianism)
  
• Church facilitates determination of the people's moral sensibilities (indoctrination?)
• Serves as the "mind" of the people
  
• State facilitates the people's exercise of their moral sensibilities (legislation)
• Serves as the "hand" of the people

The essential problem here is that the "hand" should have no influence on the "mind". This metaphor falls apart though: in an actual person, the mind should have direct control over the hand; in our government, the people are of varying "mind[s]", so the people should act as intermediary between their respective "minds" and the "hand".

The founders established the separation between Church and State in part as a response to their dislike for what they observed in England and other European countries in which the States sponsored and/or enforced Church participation (i.e. "hand" controlling "mind").

To borrow a biblical analogy, the "hand" controlling the "mind" would eventually result in the "blind leading the blind"; society would end up in a downward spiral (kind of like a toilet bowl) trying to resolve its various issues without any standard widely enough accepted to bring succinct consensus.

... In other words, society would replace its thinking cap with a dunce cap, intelligent decisions being replaced by the habit and trend of the whims of unguided "law makers", which at this stage seem to be more motivated by money than morals or utilitarian good.

So. Another reason to appreciate the remnants of our well-structured society, and reason to involve ourselves in our political process, as well as whatever other peaceful means we can find to maintain and promote the general welfare. Let's try not to become so short-sighted as some of our "law makers" and other leadership.

Precisely the Opposite

This blog {is|will be} the collection of my thoughts on matters spiritual, philosophical, political, and so on. My professional (technology) blog will remain befreely.blogspot.com.

I'm in the process of moving relevant postings over to this one, and will prepare another excessively lengthy post when I have a chance ;)

Words of Wisdom

So I've been reading, and meditating...

Even a good person sees evil so long as good ripens not; but when it bears fruits then the good one sees the good results.

-- Words of the Buddha


Reminds me of a passage in my preferred source of ancient wisdom (paraphrase):

He causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous.

-- Words of Yeschuah the Messiah (Matt. 5:45)

I realize they're not saying the same things, but they provide an interesting contrast.

In the first, Buddha says that a person's actions do not immediately bear consequence, and that a good action may not bear fruit for some time, but that eventually it eventually will. In the second, Christ is expressing the idea that we should love everyone, including our enemies, as our Father does. These essential ideas aren't really even related.

There is a similarity though: both express the idea that there comes a time when bad people experience good, and good people experience bad. It would seem that time is not fair, in this regard. I suppose the point is that a person should be able to cope with hard times and bad people with patience and perseverance, loving the bad people and keeping faith and hope through the hard times.

I get the feeling my friends think I'm better at this than a lot of others. Maybe they're right. I know that I have a lot of room to grow; when life gets tough, I can get grumpy, but I try to be patient with people anyway. I miss my times of prayer and meditation, as they seemed to help me maintain my sanity in these valleys of chaotic times in life, and as I get them so rarely these days, I wonder how much longer my sanity will last.

Tonight I have been blessed with a few moments of peace, in which I could calm myself and consider these things. ... Just enough to keep going for a little while longer, tiding me over until the next opportunity.