Friday, April 29, 2011

A SHORT STORY FOR OUR TIMES


A SHORT STORY FOR OUR TIMES

James R. Fisher, Jr., Ph.D.
© April 29, 2011

“It is the fact that man does not experience himself as the active bearer of his own powers and richness, but as an impoverished thing, dependent on powers outside of himself, unto whom he has projected his living substance.”

Erich Fromm (1900 – 1980), German-American Jewish social psychologist and philosopher

*     *     *
  

I


Imagine you are in a state of anxiety.  You don’t know whether you’re coming or going so many mixed signals bombard your senses.  Life is a burden a mounting chore.  This you keep largely to yourself, only you know the depths of your misery, your pent-up rage, the anger and frustration storming your mind.  Amazingly, you manage to fumble through your daily activity with hardly a conscious thought.  Then one day everything changes.

It is lunchtime.  You wander into the city park.  The air is refreshing.  The sky is soothing with its gentle clouds.  Your attention is drawn to a middle aged man, poorly dressed in rumpled clothes, unkempt hair and stringy beard sitting on a bench.  In contrast, his countenance suggests a contented man.  He pats his bench beckoning you to join him.  You oblige.

“Are you as happy as you look?” you ask boldly.

He smiles.  “My happiness, it surprises you?”  He turns his full attention to you.  Shocked, you see he is not old, but his deep lines suggest a well-traveled face.

“You are as content as you seem?” you insist.

“Yes,” he replies simply as he hurls a hand full of popcorn to the squirrels at his feet, “why should I not be?”  His eyes are laughing as if enjoying a private joke at your expense.  Your face reddens.

“I am a world authority on happiness,” he continues ignoring my discomfiture, breaking into a wide grin, “from my limited view of the world from my bench.”

You get a sick feeling that sitting with him was a mistake the guy is a crackpot!  You attempt to get up.

“The most important thing in life is perspective.”  He squints at the sun, rubs his eyes.  “Yes, perspective is everything.”  He rubs his hands together as if making a snowball of air then opens his palms up to present his gift.  “I present this my frame of reference.”  You look at his empty hands and shake your head in dismay.  Untroubled, he continues, “Without such a frame of reference, perspective is impossible.”  He slaps his hands together again to remove the imaginary residue of his snowball of air, then scratches his chin, pulling at his stringy whiskers, looks coyly at you out of the corner of his eye reminding you of a Leprechaun.

“Most people only know the frame of the cage.”  You winch at his words.  Your stomach churns.  You break into a sweat, turn away, search for your handkerchief.  Caged is how you feel, caged to a job, home, family and friends, to everything.  You are not in control.  You wonder if he senses this.  If so, how?  You wonder if your guard is down.

“A cage?” you ask, “like a cage in the zoo?”

“Is there any other kind?”  He senses your confusion, touches your arm gently, which startles you, sending an electric shock through your system, but his hand is as warm as his words.  Paralyzed, you don’t move.  He looks to the sky again, directly into the sun, stretching his arms heavenward, then drops them abruptly, bows his head, and says, “The moment you are born you are old enough to die.  Can you appreciate what freedom that implies?”  He raises his eyes to yours.  “Do you sense the power in that knowledge?”  All you feel is confused, and a little afraid, but he goes on.

“Life and death are soul mates, racing to embrace each other from the moment of conception.”  He pauses, pours more popcorn into his hands, “I fear,” he says solemnly, “death dominates most people’s lives who are always getting ready to live.”  He throws his popcorn to the squirrels, now joined by pigeons, “Only to run out of time.”  His voice trails off, “You cannot live until you understand life is all about death, death is the beginning of life not its end.  Everything is dying, as it is growing, living.  Dying is what life is about, so why the fear of it?”  You shrug your shoulders incomprehensibly.  You hate rhetorical discussions yet still fail to move.

“Accepting death removes the possibility of anxiety just as certainly as dry ice moves from a solid to a gas skipping the anxious liquid stage where anxiety resides.  The self is freed of the need for disguise.”  He chuckles, “Pretense is such a waste but fortunately biodegradable.”  He grabs your shoulders with his huge hands and shakes you gently, his strength surprises you, but you do nothing.

“Imagine not having to make believe!”  He studies you.  “We start out as a real person not pretending to feel, value, believe or care for what we don’t.  We start out as an authentic human being, a real person, and then we start collecting masks.”  He laughs so hard he nearly falls off the bench.  “We have more masks than clothes in our wardrobe.”

You cautiously slide to the other end of the bench, which he fails to sense.  “Notice how anxious we are about little things, losing our watch, and calm about big things, losing our house in a tornado.” He pauses.  “When we lose everything, anxiety evaporates like dry ice, showing our best face, our real face, a face we abandoned a long time ago.”  He shakes his head.  “Alas, there are not enough tornadoes.”

You know this is madness, but your spine tingles, and you don’t want to break the spell.

“With tornadoes, our essence surfaces.  We are ready to embrace life, ready to be happy.”

The idea of happiness trickles down your spine like melting ice.  You wonder if you have ever known happiness.  Your intuitive sensors break your spell.  “If I understand you correctly,” you blurt out in panic, “you imply tragedy produces happiness, right?”  Avoiding his eyes, you add, “Being obsessed with death, dying and tragedy seems absurd.”  Your words surprise you.  The stranger only smiles. 

“Oh, my friend, I disagree.  Being aware of death is not an obsession, as obsession has no perspective, no frame of reference.  He shakes his head.  “Mortality is a given, everything reverts back to its primal state of nature.  That is reality.  Denial is catalyst to demise.  I am simply suggesting that we embrace death when it is all around us, like in a tornado, and give ourselves permission to truly be alive, to be authentic human beings.  We are then ready to live, to see our common humanity and vulnerability to nature and circumstance.  If you would but allow me,” he takes your hand and studies your palm like a gypsy.  “Thank God there is death for how should we know of life otherwise?”  Still holding your palm, he says, “I might go on being someone else, someone false.  With death possible at any moment, I am ready to abandon a banal existence and an impossible cage.  I have no need to escape freedom because I am now free.”

Releasing your hand, he looks deeply into your eyes.  You self-consciously rub your sweaty palms against your shirt.  His gaze is steady open, somehow comforting.  Abruptly, he stretches his arms skyward.  “I am ready to be happy, ready to embrace my resistance to freedom, ready to take control because I am no longer intimidated by chaos.”  He pauses allowing his words to sink in, then takes your hands again.  “I am ready to open the gates of my cage, and walk into paradise.”  He pats his bench to the echo of children playing, busy people bustling by, the cacophony of city traffic, birds in the trees chirping, the coloratura of perfect pitch blending with the aroma of life. 

II


Coquettishly, he asks his eyes steel-gray ball bearings of shinny intensity,  “May I tell you a story?”  You look at your watch.  It is long past due time for you back at the office.  “It might help to explain what I mean.”  You shrug your shoulders.

“The cage is the home of anxiety.   Anxiety chases you into the cage.  Understanding this may help to avoid the cage, and make possible an authentic life.  Anxiety, you see, is more fundamental to behavior than fear.”  Your face takes on an expression of boredom.  He smiles knowingly.

“Yes, hard as that is to believe it is nevertheless true.  Fear, you see, is specific, like a tornado.  Anxiety is not.  It is free floating wondering anxiously when a tornado is to hit your home even if the possibility is rare.  Anxiety belongs to and is perpetuated by the insatiable capacity for its reporting by media. 

“Anxiety is the silence beyond language, nameless, beyond conscious experience but vicariously witnessed through word and visual pictures.  It is the orchestrated pauses of the minister or priest or rabbi, suggesting doom is upon us if we don’t mend our ways.  The core of life, the unwritten part, is where anxiety dwells.  To accept life as a mystery, and to arrive at life’s end unfinished, keeps the gates of the cage open. 

“Pundits and soothsayers, columnist and commentators, politicians and power brokers package anxiety into neat bundles of apprehension to keep us in our cages.  They provide us with toys of distraction like pacifiers given to us as babies to rid us of our compulsion to bolt our cages.

“Our cages are constructed of our fascination with fear, and our capacity for unhappiness in self-captivity as if it were a shroud.  The key riddle of life is that you are happy but have not allowed yourself to know it.  You choose the cage voluntarily claiming misery is the umbrella of happiness, as anxiety reduced to fear is misery.”

You are getting impatient, the lunch crowd is gone, the ice cream, pretzel and hot dog vendors have long ago departed, and you have missed a corporate meeting.  Rumor has it everyone’s job is on the chopping block.  You say simply, “Please, tell me your story!”

III


He smiles.  “An acquaintance of mine is a man of ideas.  His ideas in his company were said to be seditious.  His freethinking spirit intimidated people, so they made him redundant.  It didn’t matter that some of his ideas proved useful.  Others were quick to take credit, which failed to alarm him.  He took pleasure in seeing his ideas put to work.

“But before he was dismissed, the vice president of human resources said, ‘what happens if our competition gets a hold of him?’  The senior management team sitting around the table in mahogany row looked at each other, the CEO asking, ‘Could that hurt us?’  The VP of HR said, ‘Oh, yes!’  Then the CEO declared, ‘If that is true, why get rid of him?’  It was soon made apparent that he was a pariah to the corporate sphere of influence.

So, instead of accepting his resignation or redundancy status, the corporate fathers invited him to a posh villa by the sea, ostensibly to sort out his thoughts and decide on his future.  My friend is moved by this humanity.  Being treated as special is a new experience, and one relished for its novelty.  The villa belongs to a wealthy stockholder, who has expressed sympathy for my friend’s ideas.  You might think my friend at last had found true happiness.  Not so.

“At the beginning of his stay, he would sit by the pool and sip ice tea enjoying the view.  Every morning his host would come by and slap him on the back, and say, ‘My good man, how does it feel to be so free?’  Before my friend could reply, he would continue, ‘anything you want that is mine is yours for the asking, anything!’

“This ritual was repeated for several months without variance.  Eventually, as you might suspect, my friend grew restless, bored with his ice tea and the remarkable vista.  He had nothing to do.  He started getting up later and later, until sometimes he stayed in bed until mid afternoon.

“His host didn’t seem to mind.  He was a perfect host.  With my friend no longer at the pool, the host would stop by his cottage, always repeating the same refrain.  ‘My good man, how does it feel to be so free?’  To this he now added, ‘Do whatever you like, go wherever you prefer.’

‘Am I free unconditionally,’ my friend asked one day, ‘can I do absolutely anything I want to do, is that possible?’

‘Absolutely,’ bellowed the host, walking away slapping his sides, roaring with laughter.  Absolutely stung the air like a dying echo.

“This got my friend out of bed in the morning once again.  A suspicious man by nature, even an anxious one, a man of rare intelligence who was certain there had to be a catch somewhere.  He turned his cottage inside out looking for electronic bugs, video cameras, sensor screens, trip lasers.  He found nothing.  He booby trapped his briefcase, and painted the pages of his notebooks with his precious ideas with incandescent ink.  Nothing was disturbed.

“Most would have left it at that, not my friend.  He carried his research into the garden, which surrounded his cottage.  It was situated on the point of a triangular shaped lawn-garden landscaped to perfection, and spreading out like glorious wings to the sea beyond, and located a quarter mile from the main house.  This house rested on a majestic promontory constructed of moon-baked marble reminiscent of a much earlier time.

“My friend combed every inch of his property, which took him the better part of a month, convinced that he would discover tripwires, alarms systems or surveillance equipment.  Again, he found nothing.  He uprooted priceless exotic plants, stunted trees, blossoming shrubs, sea beaten rock gardens, mossy grass, and, of course, disturbing the ubiquitous insect population, especially the red ants that tattooed his ankles, hands and wrists with their painful bites.  It was a free country.

“One morning, now more than a year later, he strolled into the garden keeping an eye out for the unusual, when his host joined him.

‘Well, my good man, are you satisfied with your investigation?’ he said cheerfully, ‘is everything apparent to your satisfaction?’

“It was obvious the host wasn’t disturbed at the state of the garden, which now appeared as if invaded by an army of groundhogs.  The beauty, symmetry and geometry were gone, now replaced by my friend’s brutal anxiety.

‘Quite,” my friend said flatly seeming equally unperturbed with the ambient chaos.

“But the sound of my friend’s voice betrayed his words.  He thought himself far cleverer than his host.  So, he attempted to conceal his anxiety by baiting his benefactor.

“He snickered, and said, ‘The air is so refreshing.’  As he said this, he cupped his hands together and scooped the air, presenting this as a gift to his host.  ‘How would you describe the air’s texture?’ he asked, ‘from an empirical point of view.’ his eyes full of derisive challenge.

‘Why my good man,’ his host shrugged noncommittally, ‘whatever way you prefer it to be.  You define its texture and that it shall be.  You may define everything as you like.’

‘No!’ my friend replied angrily.  ‘That is not possible, and you know it,’ his eyes combative with confusion.  ‘What if what I define as true is not?  What if it can be disputed?  What then?  Who is the arbiter?  Who is the ultimate definer of things?’  My friend’s voice choked with emotions.

“The host hands on his hips looked up to my friend, and said, ‘There is no need for an arbiter, now is there?’

‘What of the corporation, the government, the state, the church, what if I am out of step with society?  What then?'  My friend tried to think of all his connections that had been suspended.

‘Perish the thought, my good man,’ the host said, lighting a huge cigar, and blowing smoke rings over my friend’s head, enveloping him in an absurd beatific halo, ‘you are outside such jurisdiction.  You are free!’

“My friend listened to these words and watched his host puff away cheerfully in puzzled silence.  He wondered what was real, what was the meaning of life without precise language to answer such questions?  A loud ‘snip' broke this reverie as his host reached down and deftly clipped a rose at its stem with his cigar clipper, and placed it in his lapel.

‘What of God?’ my friend asked finally.  His host turned with a start, studied my friend for a moment, slapped his thigh, and then erupted into laughter in a mounting roar, nearly choking on his cigar.  So infectious was this eruption that my friend collapsed into a paroxysm of laughter himself.  He thought his host such a good-natured man.

‘That was a good one,’ his host confessed, wiping his tearing eyes with a large silk handkerchief.  Suddenly, it wasn’t funny anymore.  The host could read this change in my friend’s eyes, the bewilderment, the rage, the anger, the betrayal.

‘Meaning no offense, my good man, this is not an easy spot in which to be free.  That’s what I’ve wanted to say.  It never ceases to amaze me how much cultural baggage you brilliant people carry into a place like this.  I’ve come to believe the more you live by your intellect the more you perish by it, and the les you seem to understand. 

‘You deep thinkers astound me.  I wasn’t laughing at you.  I was reflecting on your obsession with complexity when life is such a simple predictable process.  We live, we die, and we have a couple of laughs along the way.  That is it. 

‘You were brought here because you suffer for your ideas.  As just reward, you were given a place of peace and freedom to think to your heart’s content without interruption or preemptive challenge.’

“At that, my friend’s host put on his broad brim hat as the sun was now directly overhead, and smiled expansively.  ‘I understand your concerns perfectly.  Perhaps you should try somewhere else.’  He patted my friend on the shoulder with avuncular affection.  Then without a word, he left to tour his estate.

“Business matters were to take the host away from his estate for several weeks.  Before he left, a note was left: ‘my good man, please relax.  You’re free.  Do whatever you like.  Go wherever you prefer to go.’

“This expression of kindness far from pacifying my friend angered him into a state of wild frenzy.  He tore the note into little pieces, and flushed it down the toilet, then tossed the furniture of his cottage out into the lawn, while breaking lamps, mirrors, vases and dishware.

“His rage sated, he started to take long walks across the estate which extended for miles along the coastline.  The open countryside was alive with wild flowers of every hue, shrubs and exotic plants were in bloom, the air redolent with nature naturing.  The farther he departed from the sea the less he liked it.  Instead of finding tranquility, he found the sheer magnificence of everything stultifying.

“His walks grew shorter and shorter.  He would parade around the main house for hours on end, in the host’s absence, as if on patrol.   Finally, exhausted in this enterprise, he started to putter in the garden adjoining his cottage.  He measured his movements, as he was a precise as well as cautious man. 

“Even this garden proved to be too sweeping an project.  So, he restricted himself to the long shadows of the checkered lawn at the base of his cottage, which had been restored by groundskeepers.

“Still not satisfied, he venture into a small hollow, ringed by trees situated beyond the garden, out of sight of his cottage and just on the horizon of the main house.  There he discovered a patch of turf, precisely in the middle of the ring, perfectly level, smooth as ironed velvet.

‘Eureka!’ he declared, ‘this is just the spot for me.’  It was about one hundred square feet, or ten by ten, or a little bigger than a solitary prison cell.

“Then one day his host found him here in a state of restless ecstasy.  He was so busy walking up and down, counting and measuring, hammering stakes into the ground to mark the boundaries of the plot that he failed to notice the arrival of his host.  The host stood quietly under a tree nodding and smiling in a knowing way.  ‘Well,’ he called out at last, ‘what do we have here?’

“My friend looked sheepishly up, ‘I’m staking out a claim to this property.  I hope you don’t mind.’

“The host raised his hands above his head in an expression of mocked exasperation.  ‘My good man, why do you ask?  All this is yours, as far as the eye can see in any direction belongs as much to you as it does to me.  It is there for the asking.  I thought I made that clear.’  He gestured to the land, sea, and sky.  ‘You are free to make claim to any and all of this.’

‘Thank you for your generosity,’ said my friend, ‘but I don’t want all that.  I want only this place and space here.  ‘Look!  I’ve been measuring it out.  Do you think this is a place?  Does it have the feel of a place?’  As he spoke, he again danced merrily between the stakes celebrating his claim. 

“Sensing the anguish in my friend’s voice, the host dutifully paced off the claimed turf, noting that it measured only eight by eight feet, or 64 square feet, smaller than the space between the trees.

‘Of course, it is a place,’ the host said, ‘it is your place.’

‘These limits,’ my friend reasoned, ‘give me a sense of scope, ‘they provide boundaries in which I can function.’

‘Yes,’ the host agreed, ‘I can see what you mean,’ then reassuringly added, ‘it is a good place.’

“This support exhilarated my friend so much that he put his arm through that of his host and walked with him back to the main house, but now as partners.  Full of himself, and in the most expansive mood since coming to this place, he found he couldn’t quit jabbering on and on.  Then suddenly, he stopped.  He withdrew his arm from his host, frozen to the spot.  A huge black truck was sitting in the driveway, the largest flat bed truck he had ever seen.

‘What’s on that truck?’ he asked chokingly, finding it difficult to speak, his body cold with apprehension, rigid with foreboding.

‘Equipment,’ his host offered simply, ‘only equipment.’  Then beckoning my friend with some urgency said, ‘Come!  Let us have a drink in celebration!’  Timidly, my friend demurred, glad to avoid further discussion of the truck.

“The next morning my friend went with his host to the patch of turf among the trees to find a large object standing there covered by a black tarpaulin.  The host uncovered a gleaming steel monstrosity that glistened in the morning sunlight.  My friend looked at it in astonishment, never having seen such an object.  He walked around it struggling to purchase comprehension.  There was no mistaking what it was.  ‘It’s a cage,’ he said finally.

‘It come be seen as such,’ the host agreed.

“As these words registered, my friend could not resist entering the gleaming structure pacing out its measurements.  It was eight feet long, seven feet wide, and ten feet high for a total of five hundred and sixty cubic feet of glistening steel bars and encapsulated space.  It had a commode, lavatory, bed, table, chair, reading lamp, a sky light, no windows and one door.  My friend smiled grudgingly.  ‘I must admit it is a nice fit, comfortable, safe, too.’  He walked around it.  ‘I feel secure here.’

“At that moment, the host left, leaving my friend to study his enchantment.  He spent the day in the little hollow examining his place and space much as one sees animals pacing back and forth within their habitation in a zoo.  The host returned at sundown.

‘Well?’ he asked, ‘what do you think?’

‘I suppose in a way,’ my friend reflected submissively his voice traveling off into a whisper.  He was tired, tired of fighting for his ideas, tired of pushing facts in the face of their limits, tired of the hassle that comes from combating convention, tired of being tired.  He was beyond the world of banality having succumbed to baffling transcendence. 

‘This is the only way, my good man,’ the host said reading my friend’s expression.  ‘This is a device of class simplicity with the implications of freedom without freedom’s regrets.  Here before you is the quintessence of clarity and resolution where you need never be challenged again.

‘Ideals are in decline, morality in disarray, as chaos rules.  It is a messy world where thinking men are nearly extinct, a breed apart continuing to fall on their swords.  To retard this irrecoverable slippage, we must preserve thinking man before he becomes extinct.  Humanity has caused us to resort to this drastic measure.

‘Uncompromising purists like yourself have been happy to accept such accommodations.  Now that you have examined this place at your leisure, what is your persuasion?  Do you find it suitable to your needs?’

“Before my friend   could answer, the host continued.  ‘You will never want for anything, writing materials, books, and the best of cuisine.  No pain, discomfort, embarrassment, failure, no need to hedge, lie, cheat, steel, bear false witness, covet another man’s property, ideas or persons, no need to suffer fools, no need to worry or be anxious, you are totally outside harm’s way, within the bosom of your convictions where there is no past or any need of a future because there is no self that requires such protection.’

‘It seems substantial enough,’ my friend said more to himself as he was paying little attention to the bewildering words of his host.

‘Do you sense any deficiencies?’ the host replied jumping on this observation.

‘No, admirable, it is quite admirable, really, everything, perfect,’ my friend declared pirouetting in mock ballet.  ‘This is what I’ve always wanted.’

“The host took a key out of his pocket.  ‘Before I lock you in, it is my duty to warn you.’  My friend waved his arms and clenched his fists ‘stop!’  He shook his fist menacingly at his host, ‘I want to hear no more of your dribble.  Be off with you, let me be!’  His host backed off, then my friend said more gently, ‘Please, please no more lectures.’

‘No, I insist,’ asserted the host, ‘you must understand the conditions.’  Then with a genial smile added, ‘everything must be according to Hoyle.  We want only for your happiness.  That is my charge and our duty.  You must understand once you enter this facility of your own volition under no circumstances can you be allowed to exit again.  This cannot be emphasized too strongly.  My responsibility is to provide you with all the amenities of life until death do we part.  My good man do you understand?’

‘Yes, yes, of course,’ my friend said impatiently, ‘so get on with it, please.’

“The host was not yet through.  ‘Please bear with me,’ his body erect in a military stance, his back straight, ‘however terrible your regret however desperate your sorrow, once you have entered this place you will remain here for the rest of your days.  Is that absolutely clear?’  Before my friend could respond, the host continued, ‘You are protected from the infections of social discourse and menacing contradictions, a blessing that might one day have the ring of a curse.  Do you understand?’

“My friend stood in the middle of his place, arms folded across his chest, looking defiantly at his host.  ‘Will you please get on with it and leave me alone, please!’

“The host unceremoniously locked the facility and walked back to his house without another word.

“It all happened as the host had predicted it would.  As he had seen many times before, of an evening as he sat on the veranda of his terrace overlooking the tranquil sea, caressed by a gentle breeze, sipping a cocktail, he would hear the rising wail of my friend, the moaning throbs of his sorrows over the crushing sound of the surf, the same words and snatches of phrases night after night, like ghosts veiled in the mist from cries of another world and time, and this is how my friend spent his final days.”

IV


You look anxiously at the stranger.  “He never got out?”  He nods his head.  “Surely, he attempted to escape,” pleading in his voice.

“No,’ the stranger answers dispassionately, “Why should he?  If he had been able to escape, he would no longer be free.  He needed the cage, you see, to protect his delicate psyche and magnificent intellect from the toxicity of reality, his ideas from contemptuous rejection, his cultural baggage from disturbance.  My friend needed a world of no disconfirming evidence, a world free of anxiety, a world without contours.  He ran from his anxieties into the waiting arms of his fears, which now held him permanently at bay.  He could not face the blank wall we all must face and scribble his own countenance on it.”

You rub your chin not knowing how to take the stranger’s story.  His friend exchanged one misery for another.  If so, wasn’t he always in a cage?  Is that true of me as well?  The clock struck three o’clock. Your afternoon is shot.  This is greeted with a disturbing chill, I wonder if I still have a job?

“Excuse me, sir, I am overdo to return to my cage,” you say with forced humor, “my cage masters are surely perplexed at my absence.”

The stranger does not smile.  “We view everything from some kind of cage.  The real business of life is to recognize who put us there.”  His face is now the epitome of pain.  “We are in the dark dawn of a new enlightenment where we seem to have little awareness of how we got here.  Myth has become science and science has become myth.”  He lifts himself from his bench breathing heavily as if carrying an impossible weight.  Then he wanders away a piece, stops, looks back, “another cage, mm?”  Then he disappears as if a phantom.

*     *     *




Thursday, April 28, 2011

THE SECRET LANGUAGE OF RELATIONSHIPS

THE SECRET LANGUAGE OF RELATIONSHIPS

James R. Fisher, Jr., Ph.D.
© April 28, 2011

REFERENCE:

This was written thirty-seven years ago.  What is that the French say, the more things change the more they remain the same.  Our youngest daughter will be thirty-seven in November.  It would be interesting to see how she reads this ancient document.

*     *     *

“Unhappy are they who struggle, to be persons, not machines, to whom the Universe is not a warehouse, or at best a fancy bazaar, but a mystic temple and hall of doom.”

Thomas Carlyle (1995 – 1881), English essayist, historian, biographer, and philosopher

*     *     *

Carlyle captures the mood if not the essence of the modern dilemma of relationships.  Nowhere is struggle more apparent than in what is known as married love.  Such love has become incarceration for many role players.  Even advice columnists have seen the mystic temple give way to a hall of doom.

We shall visit some who operate in life consistent with the curious logic of such advisers.  One such adviser confessed recently that her husband of 36 years was giving her the boot.  My only reason for mentioning this is that married love has taken a quantum leap from logic.

Symbolic language may explain reality but it cannot become a substitute.  The word, love, unfortunately has more often replaced the deed, or accepted ritual to say “I love you” without proving it in action.

In this modern age of science, some of us have developed a rational lexicon to avoid commitment if not reduce our personal vulnerability.  Only today I had a client tell me in perfect Master & Johnson speak that he was sensitive to the needs of his wife, and committed to her sexual desires, but they were living together but not speaking.

They continued to have sex but she was over the top with his demands that she say that she loved him.  She claimed she loved him but was suffocating for his demands, which she felt personally cheapened her.  She confessed that she married him, an older man, because he was a good lover and she thought accepted her as she was.  But to her amazement, what she found she needed most, and he couldn’t give her, was a friend.  In an interview with her husband, he said, “I’ve never had a friend myself, how am I expected to know how to be one?”
Friendship starts with accepting ourselves as we are, or being a friend to ourselves before venturing beyond.  It is the key to accepting others.  Self-tolerance is conditional to the tolerance of others.  Self-worth is the gauge by which we measure the worth of others.  Words cannot replace the deed.  You cannot eat the word apple nor live a life on the word love.  Knowledge of self is not self-being.  Good intentions are no substitute for action. 

You cannot push the water.  To confine the water creates pressure, and pressure leads to disruption.  Human emotions are like that water.  If emotions are accepted, embraced and allowed to flow they will seek a natural level and state. 

We have trouble allowing things to flow, to exist as they are, given to tinkering with elements on the fringes while ignoring the gathering flood.  Our mentality is mechanistic, not humanistic.  We have elected to substitute humanistic symbolism to our mechanistic system and wonder why the continuing disruption. 

We have abdicated personal responsibility in our individual fate.  We have elected to have experts chart our course while we remain passively involved.  Experts can intellectualize our worse moments into money with the irony that we believe we are doing something because we are sacrificing our hard earned coin for personal commitment.  Marriage and relationships have become mind games, distraction which we welcome.  The last place husbands and wives look for answers are in one-on-one relationships with each other.  Small wonder problems are seldom resolved.

This is not the fault of experts.  They have surfaced as a result of demand and have been disabused as scapegoats for disenchanted couples.  They expect experts to solve problems that demand change, and change is not in their dictionary.  They are looking for self-justification.  They see love as a commodity like everything else with money the purchase price for a magic product ensuring happiness.

Family, society and civilization find married love as the first card in the tumbling house of cards in modern life threatening our collective survival.  It doesn’t help that married love has never been what it has been purported to be, romantic, but a struggle for equity and fulfillment of two disparate individuals, which are as much at war with themselves as with each other during the long struggle to reach what diplomats call rapprochement.

The case studies that follow are all true.  They deal with sex role identity and role reversal that are common in today’s world.

*     *     *

BETTY AND BOB


Betty has attempted suicide three times.  Each time she has come closer to this final solution.  Her doctor insists each time was a genuine attempt to do herself in, not a call for help.

Prior to my working with her, she had been in group therapy for five years.  The group became a family substitute for love and affection and understanding not found at home.  She went through the usual emotional changes common to such therapy, falling in love with her doctor, propositioning him, being propositioned by other members of the group, finally involving herself in guilt-ridden petting, and latter remorse for her conduct. 

When she talks about the group, her face lights up.  That is not true when she talks about her own family.

She has two children, 21 and 25, the oldest, a son, and honor student at university suddenly became disoriented and was diagnosed schizophrenic.  He has been institutionalized, but has now been remanded to his parents. 

Betty is a small woman in her late forties with a petite body and a dark, sultry appearance.  Her lips are pencil thin that gives her a cruel look in contrast to her eyes that sparkle with warmth and intelligence.  Her appearance goes from unattractive to beautiful when she smiles, an incongruity that appears consistent with her personality.  She can be petty and cruel one moment, when referring to her husband or children, or warm and vivacious when referring to her past doctors or college professors.

This is how she sees herself:

I was a good Catholic girl.  I never did anything wrong.  I went to Mass and Communion every day, said my prayers, helped the nuns, helped my mother, helped my father, I was always giving, giving, giving.

My father never once held me.  He didn’t like that sort of thing, didn’t think it was manly.  My mother wasn’t very warm either.  She constantly waited on my father. I think he wished I had been a boy.  I’m sorry I disappointed him.

Bob came along when I was sixteen.  He was 22 and going off to war.  I didn’t think much of him.  He was too short, too stocky, and just not my type at all, don’t know what my type is though.  Never dated, can you believe that?  My father wouldn’t let me, then Bob came along.  I quit school and married him, just like that.

God! It was terrific, really fantastic, sex, God!  Do I love sex!  I couldn’t get enough.  I didn’t know what was going on.  I had never once touched my own body, or anything like that.

Well, he went to war, and I moved into an apartment, but I wasn’t make it, and had to move back home, play the little girl role again.  It was awful, still went to church a lot.  But that incredible sexuality of mine, it was there all the time.  But what it did to me, then having him go off like that leaving me behind to suffer.  Anything I would do, I knew, would cheapen me.  God! But how I wanted a man, a boy, anything, anybody. 

Of course, I wouldn’t do anything, but did I think about it, well, it was awful let me tell you. 

Then he came home, got this stupid little job as an insurance salesman, never could do anything right, wasn’t even a very good salesman, still isn’t. 

Now, after all these years, he doesn’t want sex more than once a month, imagine that?  Once a month.  After making me suffer all those years while he was gone, while he was probably fucking some foreigner.  I’ve got the screaming ninnies, I tell you, just thinking about it now, even then sometimes I have to rape him.

But he did give me two damn nice kids I’ll say that for him, even if he beats me sometimes.  Do you know he has beaten me so badly that I’ve had to go to the hospital, not once but several times? 

I hate him but I still need him for economic reasons.  If it wasn’t for that check he brings home every two weeks like a big dope I would have left him long ago.

But the kids, well, they are a drain on me, always taking, taking, taking.  I probably should have been a nun instead of a mother.  I am just not the sympathetic type, you know what I mean, I like to be left alone.  They have been very demanding of me in their very selfish way.

Take Ted now, he thinks of no one but himself, his precious mind has run amuck.  What about my mind?  What about me?  But I have to keep him happy.  There is no time for me. 

Every time Helen comes home from school she eats everything in the house (Helen is in medical school), telling me I don’t appreciate her and what she has accomplished. 

Bob only gives me so much money to run things.  I’m not a magician.  My aunt left me a few dollars.  Bob doesn’t know how much.  I’m going to buy myself a new Buick, some new clothes, and some sexy under things, and have myself a ball.  I deserve it.  I am so happy I am able to go to school (she is in junior college) to develop my intellect.  I love intellectuals.  They are so sexy.  I know I’m jumping around but I’m so happy talking to someone who understands, someone who is not so, well, common, you know what I mean….”

*     *     *

Bob, for all I can gather, is a carbon copy of Betty’s father, not only physically, but also in attitude and philosophy.  Betty’s father sold insurance, and Bob, like her father, played things close to his vest.  He doesn’t trust anything that has to do with “ologies,” such as psychology and theology much less education in general. 

He came to therapy sessions with Betty but never commented about anything in the five years she attended the group.  He was even put into different groups and still refused to open up.  He would sit there and wait for the session to end to drive his wife home.  He saw the whole process a con game. 

Now, in a session with me, he was unwilling to discuss his boy, except to mention that the boy is a little feminine, thanks to his mother, and not willing to act like a man.  When it was suggested he might have a gentle personality, Bob’s face redden and he got up to go to the bathroom. 

When he returned, the suggestion was repeated making reference to the fact that man came from woman, that most of a child’s adolescent life was spent with a mother, so why the surprise that a child’s personality might display some mirroring of that fact?  He replied, “You shrinks are all alike.”

He became defensive when asked why he went to group therapy sessions with his wife in the first place.  He replied he didn’t like “the wife out alone at night.” 

He was then asked if he was threatened by his wife’s growing independence.  He looked at me curiously.  I mentioned that his wife was getting a new car, had come into some of her own, was going to school, and that she was turning her attention to new fashions in clothes. 

Rather than getting angry, he became nervous.  Finally, he confessed he had an urgent appointment with a client, and left without another word.  He never returned again.

*     *     *

Betty and Bob display a growing concern in conventional society, especially as it is orchestrated by religion, in this case, Roman Catholicism.  Status role obligations once carefully defined and practiced are changing.  Role-playing in marriage is no longer a linear function with the man as the head of the house, and the women his obliging and loyal partner.  Nor is the sexual act any longer locked safely away as primarily the exclusive domain of procreation, but now for pleasure as well. 

It has been said that love was locked out of Catholicism as any deviance from sexual congress with birth control devices resulted in Mortal Sin.  There was no place for love and therefore no place for lust as the focus for Catholic guilt was a frontal attack on carnality.

Today, in 1974, a more permissive society has evolved in which sins of the flesh have taken on a peculiar character and identity for the Catholic over forty.  It is a conflict between the ways it was to the way it is today.  The sense of being cheated, mainly by women, is a common complaint today. 

Bob is unsympathetic to this disposition partly out of ignorance and partly out of malice.  He wants things the way they were, like Betty’s father.  The irony is that he was a convert to Roman Catholicism as was Betty’s father.  Neither of them fully understood, or were interested in learning of the anguish and conflict of the born Catholic and the Catholic mentality that vies between guilt and lust to find some traction and satisfaction in their sexuality. 

Betty had a great sexual awakening at 16.  Sex was found terrific but the nuptial role was devoid of romance and courtship, or fantasy that she later sought in group therapy.  At sixteen, her body was ready to be a woman but not her mind and heart.

Now, she is trying to regain this loss as a middle-aged woman, embracing the feminine movement while remaining prisoner to a morality that no longer exists. 

Bob uses her conflicting dilemma against her.  Betty believes she stays with him for financial reasons when she is more prisoner of her Catholicism.  Like a little girl, she says, “Bob has no idea what time I came in last night, or what I was doing.  He thinks I’m such a frivolous girl, don’t you know, so shameless and impulsive.”

Of course, quite the converse is true.  Bob knows she has a horrible fear of dying with moral sin on her soul, that she doesn’t believe in divorce, that his best watchdog is her conscience.  He knows she desires other men, how could he not know as often as she is reminding him?  In his quiet, and imprisoning way, he has her under control. 

The last two times she has gone to the hospital due to an overdose, a neighbor had to bring her, as he refused with the rationale, “She won’t kill herself because that is a moral sin and against her religion.”

Meanwhile, Betty continues to seek a happiness pill that does not exist.  She blames everyone for her pain but herself.  Since she has received some reinforcement from her doctors “as being sick,” this has become a favorite role.

This family is held together by mental illness and little else.  Helen, the sane one, is aware of this irony.  Helen does not date, has little patience with her family, much less with anyone else.  She hides in her studies. 

Last summer, Helen went to Ireland totally on her own with little money, worked her way across the country, and loved it.  She is cheerful but guarded, intelligent but suspicious, delightful but manipulative.  She finds older men more appealing than younger men, seems not to be restrained by religious morality, or the values of her parents.  She takes pride in being her own person, and being unlike any member of her family.  Affection is her weakest expression, and as intelligent as she seems to be, she is unaware she is damaged.

Ted has found a role for himself in his mental illness.  He did not want to come home.  When he told his mother this, she promptly took an overdose of sleeping pills.  He takes particularly pride in that his doctors see him as suicidal, which to him means he has escaped the dogma trap of his religion.

It is all a game to him.  His personality test data lack internal integrity suggesting an attempt to manipulate the results.  While showing no initiative, no active I.Q., and very limited attention span, Ted managed in the “Draw-a-Person” exercise to display a classical appreciation of the schizophrenic personality.  He produced a picture of his father in a business suit, drawing a picture of himself, which was the converse of this.

It would appear that in the shrinking of American society into a pill factory bazaar that the “ologies” have become “a mystic temple and hall of doom” catering to their every need.  This is but one example of what we most feared, becoming the soul of the machine.

*     *     *

NOTE:

Thirty-seven years ago, I wrote on two other cases, which I may revisit again to give a perspective on LOOKING BACKWARD TO SEE AHEAD, which incidentally was the title of my 2007 book.. 





Tuesday, April 26, 2011

ARE YOU HAPPY? WHAT HAS THIS TO DO WITH GOD?

ARE YOU HAPPY? WHAT HAS THIS TO DO WITH GOD?


James R. Fisher, Jr., Ph.D.
© April 26, 2011


* * *


A WRITER WRITES:


Jim, The definition you formulated for "happiness" suits very well another concept, "God".


* * *

REFERENCE:


I didn’t answer but wrote to a friend, “This says a lot about the writer, I'm sure you would agree."  
This was then posted to my readers.

* * *

A WRITER FROM GERMANY WRITES:

Jim,

Is "God" always "happiness”? - Just read the bible!

Manfred


* * *

DR. FISHER RESPONDS:

Manfred,

I hope you have arrived safely back in Germany after visiting your children and grandchildren here in the United States during the Easter Season. I also hope they are all well and that your grandchildren already miss their grandparents.

I have been remiss in sending you my missives during your visit. I say this because I sense that you have not had a chance to read what I've already written in an abbreviated form on my prelude to a longer piece planned on happiness.

You see, Manfred, I don't look at "happiness" in the syrupy, romantic way it is popularly presented. It is for this reason that I've pledged myself to write a piece on the concept of happiness as I appreciate it. There is a plethora of books currently out on happiness, which I find strangely pusillanimous and superfluous in terms of my take on happiness.

* * *

The writer who makes reference to God is responding to what I have said thus far on happiness. I must admit he is correct in that my definition of happiness might be a definition of "God" for him, as my thesis is that happiness is only engagement, or a state, not something that can be defined or grasp by social characterization. Happiness, in my view, is not conditional on what may or may not be perceived by others, but is internally directed.

We have erroneously attempted to define happiness as a group norm, when it is only an individual construct. Again, "God," or whatever "God" means to us, individually, fits this test.

We have reached the crossroads between social character and society where society ensures a certain degree of conformity from the individual.

We in the West have described this in democratic terms, which we see being embraced in collisions in Northern Africa and the Middle East. My sense is that it has been triggered by the disparity in income made apparent by the arrival of a new revolution, the Electronic Age.

But again, if they think happiness is part of the modality, or that seeking this embrace happiness is likely to be found, they have failed to study our history. The West has never found "happiness" in the conventional sense as the West has been in turmoil over the last four hundred years.

This is not to say they don’t have a right to freedom or justice. I'm only implying that no place is more schizophrenic than the West, if you believe those who study such trends. I don’t see happiness as schizophrenic.

* * *

We in the West have had a "mode of conformity" as the interchangeable expression with social character. I don't mean to bore you with history, but the happiness that is often defined as "optimism" or "going with the flow" fits this definition but contradicts the trend over the last four or five hundred years.

We have been engaged in revolution since the Middle Ages in terms of social conformity and social character, which has seriously disrupted core family values and cohesiveness on the one hand, and the clan-oriented culture and tradition of society on the other.

We in the West have gone through the revolution of the Renaissance, the Reformation, the Counter-Reformation, the Industrial Revolution, the Political Revolutions of the 17th, 18th and 19th century, and now the Cultural Revolution and the Electronic Revolution as the world continues to change decisively, and we as individuals are left pretty much to fend for ourselves in these transitions and transformations.

I didn't mean to write so much early this morning but I have just a couple more thoughts, which tangentially relate to happiness as engagement.

Demographically, we in the West are changing. The population in the United States over the past ten years grew by 27 million; of that amount 15 million were Hispanic. We are moving from a white-English-speaking nation to something else.

Society is always behind the curve adjusting to these implications, and it seems that the society will not let us down again in that sense.

Society will continue to enforce its conformity model of social character through society dependence on traditional direction. It does this by having us internalize a set of goals sensitive to the expectations and preferences of others. There is value in this but it fails to have a winning calculus when it comes to happiness, which is not a collective of buzz words, or an other directed phenomenon, but an inner directed tendency that is experienced only through engagement.

We have been moving to inner directedness all my life despite corpocracy, which are the secular version of the church and the religion of finance of civil society. Corpocracy remains dominant although I find it anachronistic, and corporate moguls and their minions atavistic.

The books to which I refer to in my piece address us in corporate speak to the letter without apparently realizing they do. Scholarship has been reduced to a book contract.

I perhaps don't know the bible as well as you do, but I agree God in the bible is not always a happy camper. In fact His psychological gyroscope often indicates it should be returned to the shop for repair. This instrument is not always rational, but what is?

The psychological gyroscope, which I refer to in my writing as having a moral center, does delineate a balance between life aspirations and the buffeting world of life demands. It will never be off its fulcrum if we are engaged in work or some activity that is spiritually enhancing despite the madness around us.

* * *

My thesis, and it is consistent in all my writings, is that as much as we are a product of society and controlled by its constructs, we can only find happiness by engaging in some kind of activity or work that is love made visible. Happiness is not a thing, but a state, and the state demands some type of involvement of ourselves in that state however many nervous breakdowns the world and society and those around us may experience.

God doesn't have anything to do with scarcity psychology or abundance psychology, or even waste. Like Nature, He simply is.

We don’t have that comfort. We have to make choices. It is my thesis as well that the degree to which we have or lack happiness is determined where we are, now!

It is also part of my thesis that ninety-nine percent of us are precisely where we expected to be, or chose to be by either forcing circumstances or drifting to that precise location.

We cannot blame happiness or our lack of happiness on fate or destiny or bad luck. Ultimately, those unhappy have never made the effort to be happy. They believed it was a thing, a large income, winning the lottery, being famous, and having scores of friends, or a great career, when it is none of these “things,” because it is not a thing.

When we are engaged, no matter our state of health, wealth, celebrity, brilliance, success, or the lack of same, we are in a state of happiness, and in that sense I can see where my reader sees this a definition of God.

Be always well, and thank you for writing.

Jim

* * *

Sunday, April 24, 2011

ARE YOU HAPPY -- PRELUDE TO A PLANNED PIECE

ARE YOU HAPPY?

James R. Fisher, Jr., Ph.D.
© April 24, 2011

PRELUDE TO A PLANNED PIECE:


This is s prelude to what will be coming up in the next week or so when Dr. Fisher finally gets his study back in order after pruning it of books no longer germane to where he is or where he is going. . 

The Peripatetic Philosopher discusses a number of authors on their take on happiness, essentially disagreeing with them all, as he sees happiness as only engagement, not an end or anything tangible or palpable of what is popularly known as happiness.  Happiness is not a thing.  It is a state.  It is not something dependent on someone else but the character and construction of our own internal world and our relationship to that state and that world.  Stay tuned.
JRF

*     *     *

EARLY RESPONSE TO THIS PRELUDE:

You are right on the money with regard to happiness.  Thank you.  I have believed that for quite some time now but have never put it quite that eloquently.

DR. FISHER COMMENTS:

In this explanatory age, which explains everything, which often amounts to an inability to understand anything, we find this noticeably true in sensitive areas of our lives, such as happiness. 

No surprise, people so captivated by these explanations are looking for happiness in all the wrong places, and for all the wrong reasons.  

A series of authors who are keen practitioners of this explanatory model will be discussed subsequently, including an icon of our Western cultural heritage.  The authors included are:


CANDIDE or OPTIMISM BY Voltaire

SMILE OR DIE by Barbara Ehrenreich

PERPETUAL EUPHORIA by Pascal Bruckner

SEVEN PLEASURES ON ORDINARY HAPPINESS by Willard Spiegelman

FLOW by Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi

STUMBLING ON HAPPINESS by Daniel Gilbert

THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS by Darrin McMahan

MY HAPPY DAYS IN HELL by Gyorgy Faludy

HAPPINESS LESSONS FROM NEW SCIENCE by Richard Layard

THE SADDEST KING by Chris Warmell

LAUGHTER: NOTES ON PASSION by Anca Parvulescu

EXPLORING HAPPINESS FROM ARISTOTLE TO BRAIN SCIENCE

*     *     *

NOTE: To caution my readers, this is neither a long nor definitive work but a collection of comments on the works of these devoted souls who set out to discover for us what they were unable to find for themselves, the key to happiness.  Why so?

Once you try to define happiness, you lose it.  It is as simple as that.  Still, it will be fun to play with the idea.     

The chairman of my dissertation committee for my Ph.D. wrote this note to me:  “For Jim, who really appreciates my perpetually perplexing paradoxes, affectionately, Kant Nimbark, July 19, 1977.”  If anyone is the blame for me seeing inside nonsense that we take to be scholarship, it is this paradoxical academic.

*     *     *