Saturday, January 30, 2021

TIME OUT FOR SANITY - ORIGINAL ESSAY

 

Time Out for Sanity! A Blueprint for Coping in a Sick Society, James R. Fisher, Jr., Ph.D. © January 2007

BACKGROUND REFERENCE:

During the Christmas holidays in 2006, rummaging through my accumulated archives of published and unpublished material, I came across this manuscript. It was written when I was fresh from my most recent stint in academia in the late 1970s, having received my Ph.D. It was a time of palpable madness as some readers may recall:

When young people were forced to participate in an unpopular war (Vietnam); when political upheaval was in the air; when corrupt politicians lied and deceived the electorate; when this deception reached a crescendo with Watergate; when drugs were ruining lives; when morality took a holiday; when new forms of bigotry and hatred were being hatched; when the automotive industry was in sharp decline, while foreign automakers were eating our lunch; when an energy crisis rocked the land with OPEC’s oil embargo; when a paranoid president (Nixon) hunkered down and became a law unto himself; when CONGRESS stayed the same, missed the changes, wouldn’t face them, and left the future up for grabs.

This essay incorporated themes I would eventually expand in “A Look Back to See Ahead” (2007), however putting it on hold in 1978 and writing about other things.

“Is society sick?” was originally a ninety page essay written more than forty years ago. As you read this work consider its themes in the context of today, asking yourself: has society moved towards healing, and if not, why not?”

Note: A version of this original essay appears on my blog (peripateticphilosopher.blogspot.com January, 2006)

From the pages of “Time Out for Sanity: Blueprint for Dealing with an Anxious Age” (2015)

“IS SOCIETY SICK?”

“May we not be justified in reaching the diagnosis that, under the influence of cultural urges, some civilizations, or some epochs of civilization – possibly the whole of mankind –have become neurotic? We may expect that one day someone will venture to embark upon a pathology of cultural communities.”

Sigmund Freud, Civilization and Its Discontents (1930)

We are taught from an early age not to think but to do; to accept formulated programming by society. This is reinforced in school and church and sustained by media. Natural skepticism is blunted by an incessant bombardment of a cultural point of view.

Consequently, the last person one cues on is oneself. The last authority one respects is that of one's own authority. Many observers, among them Erich Fromm, Eric Hoffer, Pitirim Sorokin, R.D. Laing and T. S. Szasz, echo the sentiments of the man-on-the-street.

The shift away from a community-centered society finds the individual on his own. The Renaissance spirit is disregarded in the lives and works of ordinary citizens. For that reason, these pathfinders appear strangely as “societal misfits” or outsiders.

They have had the courage to see and to be. It is time for correction; time to shed illusory and iconic images, and to endure the pain and surprise of a new dawn. If society is sick, it can only be saved one person at a time, a person not afraid to proclaim the emperor has on no clothes.

Authenticity is needed to come to grips with this plight. My pastor confesses to his parishioners, “It is impossible to know whom to believe,” a direct reference to disclosures of Watergate. “I held out to the very last that the president would be exonerated, that the whole thing was a media fiasco.” He throws his sermon to the floor. “Never again will I believe in any of them!”

Melodramatic? Juvenile? He is not through. “I should have been born in the twelfth century when sanity ruled.”

Of course, he is wrong but feels everyone listening is equally ignorant, mesmerized by his theological office. Sanity, if anything, has taken a holiday with a return to
“The Age of the Crusades and Inquisitions.”

What he should have said is that the twelfth century was an era of transition as is the present. Then he would have given his parishioners a perspective to consider in the light of current events. Society was sick not only because of that Inquisition, but because of the monarchial authority and feudalistic zeal of the church to dominate and control ordinary souls in all phases of their existence.

To romanticize this period is to give short shrift to good sense. This happens when public trust is put on a pedestal to see people and events as more than human to treat them as less than human. When we fail to see humanity, as it is, evil as well as good, it makes a mockery of us all. Our cloying dependence on outside authority for internal security demonstrates how completely immature that young priest was in one sense, and how well he knew his parishioners in another.

He was shaped and molded, in part, by the media he despises. He has since left the church, cynical and disenchanted, still clinging to his illusions. He was not prepared to cope with Watergate, he says, but that is not quite the case. He managed to project and transfer his frustrations to this convenient scapegoat – as many of us have done – without gaining an iota of insight in either Watergate or in himself.

He epitomizes the person totally shaped by other men’s minds without being introduced to his own. He represents a prototype of the times that uses events outside experience to justify his self-indulgence.

Our society never mentions our secret desires, but they are behind every word. We live in a culture where the passivity of hope dominates. This leads to missed opportunity and wasted energy that we all know so well. In the end, chances are the reader decides the issue of sickness or wellness on the basis of his or her own perspective and experience, as it should be.

HAVE A LOVE AFFAIR WITH WHAT YOU DO!

“There are pauses amidst study, and even pauses of seeming idleness, in which a process goes on which may be likened to the digestion of food. In those seasons of repose, our powers are gathering their strength for new efforts; as land which lies fallow recovers itself for tillage.”

American clergyman J. W. Alexander (1804 – 1859)

All of us must work, but we differ widely in our interpretation of that experience. We differ in our sense of role, duty, obligation and responsibility. It is more likely that work happens to us rather than is created out of love. Since it is more likely something we have to do rather than want to do, it is doubtful that love is a consideration. We fall into work but not the way we fall into love. There is intense pleasure and anticipation when we fall into love. We take leave of our senses to rediscover them. Words such as fulfillment, completion, and wholeness only come to mind after the fact when we are one with our mate.

Why not the same with work? There is a simple answer. Love is a relationship. It is personal. It is intimate. It makes us more than we are. It is appreciative. We never tire of telling our mate how much we love him or her because it is more than we ever expected, more than we sense we deserve. Every moment of every day is a blessing.

Work, on the hand, has been reduced to money. We measure success, status, clout, importance, and security in terms of money. Money is a thing without personality; with no chance of intimacy; no sense of satisfaction, which always makes us feel less than we are. It is a reward for doing something that we are paid to do, and therefore it is a material, not a spiritual connection.

Money becomes so important to us that even love is measured in terms of money. We would rather give our mate an expensive gift than our loving attention. Indeed, love has been reduced to commerce: “Diamonds are a girl’s best friend.” Diamonds are cold, hard, and inanimate and reflect brilliance without having any. They are love’s substitute for intimacy of a personal nature, which translates into spending quality time together. With money, we never have enough because someone always has more.

We compare and compete with others by having better homes, bigger cars, larger wardrobes, bigger bank accounts and stock portfolios, always more. We never have enough. The axiom follows the less we enjoy work the more important is money. Money becomes an unconscious effort to punish our employer for making us do something we don’t want to do, but have talked ourselves into believing we have to do.

All of us fall across a spectrum of love and hate when it comes to work. No work is ever perfect, nor is any worker. Our approach to work differs according to our state of mind. We live in a material world, but we also live in a spiritual world. We live in a world of things, but also a world of people. If we have a job we love, and a mate that completes us, we are blessed with an angelic touch of heaven. We don’t have to say a word to let the world know how we feel about work. It shows in our countenance, the way we move, clearly demonstrating rather work is a chore or a joy.

The disgruntled worker acts as if the world owes him a living when the employer owes him only a full day's pay for a full day's work, and no more. The employer is not his keeper, not there to bail him out for his poor money management; not there to excuse his excesses; not there as apologist to placate the consequences of his actions. We are master or slave of our existence. What is there about those who seem always happy at work, who tackle each assignment with enthusiasm, and who embrace challenge and ride disappointment with equal ease?

Better yet, whom do they most resemble? Obviously, the adult. Then why are there so few? Think of high achievers you know in any endeavor, who never tire raising the bar and achieving at a higher level, then ask yourself why there are not more of them? We are all part of nature and grow once we seed our effort, and tend to grow consistent with nature’s requirements.

But the ground must be fertile, the climate conducive, and the cultivation appropriate to the growing. Perhaps that is what is missing. It is no accident that some students work to learn while others work only for grades. The learner derives something new that is part of him or her for life. The grade grabber leaves learning behind clinging to credentials.

Work is love made visible when our outsides catch up with our insides for work is a measure of all things.

START CUING ON YOURSELF!

“The problem is that literate and civilized people do not understand that their brains are much smarter than their minds.”

Alan W. Watts, British American Philosopher

The very last voice we hear, the very last place we look to for answers is ourselves. This is as true of the educated as the uneducated, in fact even more so. The educated are programmed to conform and respond to the system. They cannot write a paper without an access of references meant to give the paper credence when it only demonstrates the lack of imagination and originality.

We hold ourselves in the lowest of esteem when it comes down to the nitty-gritty. Infrequently, when our intuitive voice cuts through conformity, we make decisions consistent with ourselves. Otherwise, we look everywhere for answers but where they reside. Small wonder marriage counselors, psychic gurus, management consultants, psychotherapist and clinical psychologists have a full calendar of obliging prospects to swallow their bromides as implicit wisdom.

Dr. Thomas Harris states that ninety percent of us see everyone else as “okay,” but ourselves as “not okay.” No matter what our situation, we never see ourselves as having either enough education or income to consider ourselves “okay.”

Incredible as it may seem, we see ourselves as under educated, under skilled, and under qualified to deal with our own lives. We think others are better able to address what is only salient to us. This doesn’t throw us into action to right this deficiency. It throws us into a swoon of inertia. We believe the key to our destiny is in an authority figure unfamiliar with us as a person, when we already have that key in our hands. We don’t want to do something. We want someone to alleviate our angst. Many of us are like the man who is starving with a loaf of bread under his arm.

So terrified are we of events over which we have no control that we box ourselves in and then hand our fate over to someone else. Take the mother who watches the six o’clock news on television and is so overwhelmed she cannot make dinner, or the father who hears rumors of the plant closing and cannot get out of bed to go to work. In both instances, mother and father are living on the edge abdicating their harmony and equilibrium to a foreign voice, a proposition carried to the extreme.

Consequently, the last person we trust is ourselves; the last person we have confidence in is ourselves; the last person we gamble on is ourselves; and the last person we invest in is ourselves. We will invest in a house to shelter us and as a hedge against inflation. We will invest in an automobile to carry us from here to there. We will invest in nice clothes to make the correct impression on people that count. But we will feel guilty if we seek education with no apparent instrumental justification.

We see people reading books that have nothing to do with work and sense that they are idlers, but we think nothing of those spending happy hours after work in local pubs. They are unwinding.

The cultivation of the mind for its own enjoyment is best kept a secret to avoid ridicule, but it needn’t be. Few see it as a waste to gamble over which we have no control: stock market, athletic contests, and the lottery. The essence of gambling is that the stakes are loaded against us. Even if we win, it is not earned. What is not earned is not appreciated. Then too, it is avoiding the struggle, which is life, where only what we earn is ever valued. It is well to remember that the inner voice tells us not only where we are going, but also why we are going there. To hear it we must cue on ourselves.

SO, YOU HAVE ROCKS IN YOUR HEAD! WELCOME TO THE CLUB!

“The great breakthrough in the contemporary theory of mental illness is that it represents a kind of stupidity, a limitation or obtuseness of perception, a failure to see the world as it is. It is not a disease in the medical sense, but a failure to assign correct priorities to the real world.”

Ernest Becker, Revolution in Psychiatry (1964)

To be human is to be mysterious and mystifying. There is not a man alive without secrets, deep and dark secrets that he fears would be his undoing if they “got out.” Nor is there a man alive without perverted ways. We tend to see such ways only in sexual terms, but that is only the tip of the iceberg. There are far more damaging perversions in society notwithstanding myths to the contrary.

Morality is in the mind of the time. Morality is itself a perversion. It is constructed of taboos and perverted myths that poison the soul from generation to generation. The Inquisition and witch-hunts come to mind. Monstrous perversions have been done in the name of religion that today would quake the immortal soul. Depravity yesterday is common practice today.

We create a private hell for ourselves by buying into what society sanctions in its ambivalence. The decadence of the 1920s, the Flapper Era, when young people reportedly “went wild,” would be considered mild fare today.

People of the Great Gatsby ilk line both coastlines in conspicuous ostentation, while being celebrated as leading citizens. Then there are those that cue on self-righteous themes in the midst of hedonism. Many have been “born again.” In surrendering to a new austerity, they forget why wine, women and song consume a time.

People depart from moral restriction for reason. Society finds it necessary to break from stultifying rectitude to breathe, when transitioning from one form of society to another results in spinning off in a maddening dash to new meanings.

People have little sense why such diversions from the previous norm surface. They see excess as sin, which is meaningless, when waste is the culprit. The lack of limits is the sin of our times and why society is in the throes of a nervous breakdown.

When everyone behaves the same, when leadership mimics this sameness, society is adrift and no one is in charge. We are in a decade of confused leadership where authority has no meaning at any level: home, school, church, work, or government. This is largely due to the fact that those in authority attempt to hide their weakness: that is, parents, teachers, priests, bosses, and politicians.

Great leaders are plagued by great weakness. Lincoln suffered depression and melancholy most of his life; Churchill was an alcoholic and suffered depression. Hitler and Napoleon behaved civilly in their personal life, neither smoking nor drinking, but barbarically in their military ambitions. Hitler was extremely careful in his diet with a regiment of proper sleep and exercise. Neither Lincoln nor Churchill worked regular hours pushing themselves often beyond their limits.

What these leaders held in common was an awareness of their historic significance, careful to manage their image away from their human failings. Only Hitler failed to see humor in his limitations while the others shared theirs if obliquely.

Why is man unable to tolerate what he is not? Why is it so hard for him to see the natural connection between strength and weakness, the bond between good and evil that exists in us all? Why the ambiguity of madness, as if madness is a rarity when madness is as common to the human spirit as is sanity?

It is madness that sparks creativity. It took madness to create the great symphonies, paintings, literature and architecture. Madness escapes the norm. How could Milton create “Paradise Lost,” or Dante “The Divine Comedy” without an acquaintance with madness?

Creativity is not rare but common. Alas, it is killed in many of us before it catches hold. The instinct for self-preservation and approval clashes with the impulse for internal widening and spiritual awakening. Outsiders have penetrated these barriers and have built the society we know by cuing on themselves as individuals at great sacrifice. They are change agents standing for truth that Colin Wilson suggests in “The Outsider” (1956) begin as outsiders and finish as saints.

It is impossible to grow as an individual unless strength is understood in terms of weakness, goodness in terms of evil instincts, energetic commitment in terms of laziness, and sanity in terms of its twin, madness.

Since madness is where creativity lies, it must be employed for sanity to triumph. Growth of a man is the orchestration of self-acceptance complemented by the acceptance of others as they are. The only person you can change is yourself, no other. Without that understanding, there is no growth, only parody. These secrets are part of your essence. To tap them only takes their acknowledgement.

CELEBRATE YOUR ADVERSITY!

“A smooth sea never made a skillful mariner, neither do uninterrupted prosperity and success qualify for usefulness and happiness. The storms of adversity, like those of the ocean, rouse the faculties, and excite the invention, prudence, and skill, and fortitude of the voyager. The martyrs of ancient times, in bracing their minds to outward calamities, acquired a loftiness of purpose and a moral heroism worth a lifetime of softness and security.”

Anonymous

The most common story told with each success is devoid of the more compelling story, which is its brother, failure.

Failure is a precious gift of experience that no one can give to another no matter how much love they hold for that person. Failure is the scent of the wine’s bouquet before its taste passes the pallid. The scent precedes the taste of success; its essence its bouquet. Failure is an expression of having the mettle to try with no chance of being held up by someone else should failure come. There is little appreciation of success unless it is preceded by failure.

Fermentation gives a wine its bouquet; failure gives success its essence. There is no substitute for the fermentation of experience. Nor is there any chance of growth without pain. Information can be acquired, precaution can be taken, but the progression from inadequate to adequate to proficient involves pain and risk and failure. Struggle is therefore not something to avoid but something to embrace. The greatest learning experience is limited to situations that might otherwise be described as risky or ill advised. That is not to say one should court adversity at the expense of good fortune. It means simply that adversity is likely to touch everyone’s life in the course of living and should not cripple one, or cause one to view life as hopeless when it occurs.

Genius is the name of persistence. Adversity has many faces. One man’s adversity may be another man’s good fortune. It is all in the mind of the beholder. One takes his bumps in the road and chalks them up to experience; someone else is traumatized by the bumps, and looks for a less demanding course. Good fortune comes to those who take all shades of trouble in stride as part of the cycle of failure and success to be encountered in that quest.

Think back over your life and reflect on your successes and failures and ask yourself this question: what did I learn and when did I learn it?

Frequently, what happens when we are enjoying success is that we don’t think at all. If we do think, we wonder when the other shoe will fall, and failure will return. Failure is always the ghost in the wing taunting us off stage. It stands to reason a string of good fortune must be followed with failure, right?

No one can always be successful, but yet some people are. Why is that? Could it be that they constantly review the lessons learned in failure, and reapply them to success? We wonder in this odd way when we are failing but not when we are succeeding. It is apt to find us up tight when the best of all worlds are visiting us, strange as it may seem. We fear the worse and everyone’s face is its reflection, and so the caution.

Then there is the possibility we cover ourselves in martyrdom garb when we are failing licking our wounds and scorning others who refuse to lick them for us. As natural as failure is to our development, and as important as it is in building our character, failure is terribly misunderstood.

It is failure, or adversity that wakes us out of our doldrums, kicks us into action as our instincts come into play. We have little awareness of our capacity to survive until motivated to prevail. Odd as it may seem, some fold up their tent, retreat into themselves, and wait to be rescued. They ignore their strengths and play on their weakness.

This is not to say that retreat is always a bad strategy. There are times when it is the best strategy, such times as when the heart and mind need a respite of healing before moving on. Depression often takes hold when the mind is overwhelmed and the body is racked with debilitating illness. We treat depression as a disease with drugs and talking cures, and even electric shock, God help us for that, yet depression pivots on the constant war between fight and flight. Discretion is the better part of valor when we take flight and recognize it is time to take a “time out.”

The mind can only process so much information. When that information doubles, our capacity to cope is strained to the breaking point, and all kinds of alarm signals are going off telling us to slow down or even stop. We ignore them at our peril. The major reason we have wars between people is to escape the constant war within.

We project the object of our wrath on someone or something that reminds us of our horror. In our desperation to escape such confinement, we declare war on someone else. War is never rationale. War is always about hidden shame. It is the conflict generated by doing something even if it is wrong versus the inertia of doing nothing that plagues the spirit when dominated by the insanity of action.

Failure and adversity see through the con to what is hidden behind, which is the reality of experience. Einstein failed many examinations until he finally passed the one marked “truth.” Edison and Tesla failed many times before they tasted success in the world of electricity. Failure is a great teaching tool. Failure is not merely a “trial and error” methodology. It is an exercise in persistence and a matter of retrial and correction.

A popular example is that of Colonel Sanders and the “Kentucky Fried Chicken” franchise. The colonel was sixty-five when an interstate highway cut right through the location of his restaurant. He had every reason to give up, retire, and go peacefully into the sunset. Instead, he took his recipe on the road in an attempt to sell it to restaurants. He had hundreds of rejections until he found success in a little restaurant in Utah. The rest is history. He lived to be a wealthy octogenarian, active and happy to the end. His wealth could not be measured in dollars for it was priceless.

IS IT REALLY SERIOUS?

“Had I but died an hour before this chance,

I had liv’d a blessed time; for, from this instant,

There’s nothing serious in mortality;

All is but toys; renown and grace is dead,

The wine of life is drawn, and the mere lees

Is left this vault to brag of.”

Shakespeare’s Macbeth

Look at all the long frowning and sad faces that greet you coming and going every day. Is your face one of them? What is it that really matters to you? Is it your money? Your car? Your house? Your family? Your girl or boyfriend? Your wife or husband? Your children? Your education? Your career? The questions are endless.

What is it that life is all about anyway? Is it fame and fortune, pleasure and comfort, security and a worry free existence? It is a fair question. I’m wagering you don’t have the foggiest idea because there are no definitive answers. At best, our answers would be subjective and ambiguous. We worry about what has not yet happened, and probably won’t because anxiety has become the luxury of a people with too much, too many, and too soon.

This is the sum and substance of life for whether you take it in stride or stridently, life goes on. Thank you very much. Worry surfaces when toys become more important than tools and distraction more appealing than attention.

Why is it we develop personal space and then fortify it with all sorts of disposable things, and then compound this insulation closeting ourselves in fenced in communities? Is it our fear of others and life that we hide from display? Or is it because we are ill humored, lonely, shy, and afraid to venture beyond ourselves? Nothing is private and therefore no one is.

We gave that all up when we became an industrial society. Community is now an anachronism. Have you taken inventory of your priorities? Have you checked your mind for its grand design? Some people plan as if they intend to live forever, putting off living until they retire only to find they have run out of energy as well as time.

Why are we afraid? What do we fear? One of the most common fears is getting up in front of an audience and making a speech. Why is that? What do we want to protect? Our name? Our profession? Our reputation? Are we embarrassed for looking a fool? We think speakers are different than we are, when they are the same only with a sense of humor about the folly of exposure. So-called thinkers are no surer of themselves than the rest of us. They express their ideas to hear them outside themselves to calibrate the affirmation of the echo.

We do the same thing as talkers to our friends. For that matter, what is a thinker? Granted, some thinkers take themselves seriously, but that is because of arrogance. They truly believe they have answers to everything and for everyone. It is why smart people fail. They are so enamored of the purity of their thinking they lack an appreciation of its limitations. Consequently, they eventually make horrible blunders and come crashing down into humiliating disgrace.

There is no thinker, only conditioned thinking. Thought is conditioned. The mind is the storehouse of experience. Memory itself arises from conditioned thought. So, whoever the thinker, deep or superficial, the movement of the mind in any direction produces its own limits.

When the mind makes an effort to transform itself, it merely builds another pattern on top of the old. It is an effort of the mind to free itself from itself while only giving rise to a continuance of thought. It may be at a higher level but it remains in its own sphere framed in that circle of thought and time. It is why more than one mind on a problem is prudence personified.

Is the world situation all that serious? Is the state of the economy all that serious? Is the state of your health all that serious? If you say, “yes” to these questions, then you are part of the collective con. I have heard these questions repeated all my life with circumstances rather than actions controlling the agenda, and always circling back on the same serious concerns.

The paralysis of analysis finds thinkers, whomever they are, failing to get beyond the barrier of conventional wisdom to meaningful action. That is why the problems solved are the problems thinking creates, ad infinitum. In one breath, we mouth, “This is serious,” and in the other, “not my problem.”

We fail to read the newspaper because it depresses us. We don’t vote because “all politicians are crooked, and it doesn’t matter anyway.” We wish we could give up cigarettes, but say, “we’ve got to die from something. Why not something that gives us pleasure?” We think we take life seriously but we don’t take it seriously at all.

What has happened to our inner fortitude? Are we traumatized by what is real and should be taken seriously, while fooled by what is not and beyond the pale of our consciousness? The evidence of this dilemma is that we wax serious when we don’t actually give a damn, or as fools fooling ourselves. If so, who is the ultimate loser in this game if not us? The evidence is all around us.

After a century of “progress,” we are leaving our planet a wasteland to be cleansed by some future global miraculous strategy. Does seriousness produce anything worthwhile? Are we happier or healthier, wiser or wealthier for being addicted to the rhetoric of progress? Where does this seriousness fit into a life plan where there are only remote and ambiguous sacrifices? These are questions only the reader can answer from the cast of characters in the gallery of his life.

LIFE IS A JOURNEY NOT AN END, SO ENJOY!

“Following another is merely an effect of a deeper cause, and without understanding that cause, whether one outwardly follows or not has very little meaning. The desire to arrive, to reach the other shore, is the beginning of our human search. We crave success, permanency, comfort, love, and enduring state of peace, and unless the mind is free of this desire, there must be following in direct or devious ways. Following is merely a symptom of a deep longing for security.”

J. Krishnarmurti, Commentaries on Living: Third Series (1960)

“Nothing so much convinces me of the boundlessness of the human mind as its operation in dreaming.”

William Benton Clulow (1802 – 1882) English Clergyman

What are you thinking at this moment? Ideas fly up from the page and set off little explosions in the mind, chasing you here and there, from this to that, to what and when as if you are on a magic carpet.

The mind is processing the words read to your unique kingdom of experience. In a way, you are in the embrace of the dream, which transports you, to another place. The dreamer in you has been released from its prison of doubt and conformity to speculate in the stillness of the mind where there is no interfering force. There is only stillness. There is no beginning, middle, or end. Your mind and this stillness are one. You are outside of time.

There is no before, now, or after. There is only “what is.” Art and science have no business in your dream. There is no desire to analyze, no need to shade and select. There is no pain or pleasure, happiness or sadness. There is no construction of reality. There is no payoff for the dreaming has no design or product, no need for cleverness or strategy, no need for symbols or processes, and most apparent of all, no need for continuity.

The dreamer goes where he wills govern by no strictures of logic. We are more than ourselves in our sleep for the slumber wakes up our souls. The experience, something that man has enjoyed since the dawn of consciousness, has come to have many names, but our dream has only one name, joy.

We like to call this stillness transcendental or meditation for it is beyond time and classification, a bit of heaven while we are still alive. The release of the mind from its confinement regenerates the individual so that dividends accrue without effort, pain, or conscious thought. In the course of dreaming, the imagination crystallizes into imagery, which is revealed in fragments after the fact.

It is as futile to control the content of a dream as it would be to capture love in a bottle. Scientists declare dreaming as REM (rapid eye movement) or fitful sleep. Yet, we cannot be fully awake unless we have truly dreamed. We cannot fathom the world if we have not first dreamt it. Everything must stop before it starts, and that stopping is the stillness of the mind in the luxury of the dream. You cannot convince yourself that you are alert if you have never been otherwise. You cannot enjoy the moment if you are never in it fully. This is counterintuitive, but that is because we understand everything in terms of effort and there is no effort in the dream, no past or fear of the future.

We have sacrificed the dream for dread and live in the consequence of that decision. All the symbols and concepts and ideas drilled into our heads in school do not constitute thinking. They constitute knowledge, and knowledge is not wisdom.

Understanding the simple is the meter of wisdom, and the simple first comes to us in our dreams. That is why we often solve complex problems in our sleep. Cut away all the posturing and complexity, and we discover life in reflection is a process, not a product, a journey, not an end, a dream and not a plan, a joy and not a chore.

Dreaming is a force when the brilliance of the dream is never allowed to fade, as the future opens to us. Education is a process not to open doors or fill our pockets with gold, but to open our minds to the dream that lies dormant within us waiting to be released. Intelligence is the connection of the mind with the dream so that we live in the real and surreal world without anguish or apology as complements to each other.

Postponing joy is to miss the point. Joy is not something to bank but something to be. Life is not an endurance contest meant to cope in misery. No one should be in a job or a career or a marriage that kills the spirit and thus the joy. Joy is the dream materialized. If the dream is dead and there is no place for joy, it is likely because the focus is on tomorrow, and what might be.

Misery joins self-pity in mournful embrace. Yet, life can be a creative journey filled with joy instead of sorrow and stridency. True, few of us can capture our dreams in our waking hours as Dante and Milton did theirs, but we can determine to make choices that keep our imaginations alive.

YOU MUST DISBELIEVE BEFORE YOU CAN BELIEVE!

“We feel we cannot act without belief, because it is belief that gives us something to live for, to work for. To most of us, life has no meaning but that which belief gives it; belief has greater significance than life. We think that life must be lived in the pattern of belief; for without a pattern of some kind, how can there be action? So our action is based on idea, or is the outcome of an idea; and action, then, is not as important as idea.”

J. Krishnamurti, Commentaries on Living: First Series (1956)

Belief is a blindness of culture. Since we are all products of our culture, we share in this blindness. Belief is a stop sign telling the mind to turn off because “we have arrived.” The problem with this is that someone else is defining our destiny and the nature of our arrival. When you force the mind to believe what it cannot believe, its obedience is a lie. To have a culture that insists on beliefs that are no longer relevant or realistic is to give substance to the lie.

The weight of that culture is directed at self-preservation rather than challenging its beliefs. We live in such a culture. Fear is held over our heads if we confess doubt to such beliefs. This fear is compounded when a web of deceit and chicanery smothers doubters into silence.

When there is no room for doubt, when the collective will impinges on individual choice, then imagination, creativity, and growth and developed are squeezed through a psychological strainer. The output is often the stench of rotting belief.

During this mind blindness, true believers carry the day, the herd mentality that seeks comfort and advantage in the bosom of the popular norm. Clichés and stereotypes rule. True believers are actually cynical. They think everyone has an angle and is out to get as much as they can while the getting is good. They lack identity beyond the group, which explains the attraction.

As true believers, they have a cause to compensate for self-hatred. The words they use resonate with like-minded souls, yet they are always prepared to abandon the cause should it go out of favor. The attraction of true believers is to belong to something bigger than themselves, the envy of others, where special privileges and compensations accrue.

Each of us is blessed with the powerful filter of natural skepticism, which is far removed from cynicism. Skepticism prevents us from being taken in with what makes no sense to us, or which is not consistent with what we are and have experienced. It is a protective mechanism of the body and soul. We are limited to how our minds operate and process belief. It is well for us to disbelieve everything and anything before we entertain the possibility of belief.

This is because the mind can operate only with its own projections, that is, with the things that are of its own self. The mind has no relationship to the things that are not of its own origin. It cannot process what it cannot fathom in the realm of what it has already experienced or contemplated or reasoned out before.

The trick that is used on the mind is that a word or symbol or phrase or emotionally laden disclosure touches a theme buried in our unconscious. All of us want approval. All of us want to belong. All of us want to be accepted. These basic needs can be exploited if our skepticism filter is not reinforced with self-identity, self-approval and self-acceptance.

If not, then the mind can be cultivated and carried away with the bombast of someone else’s agenda. That is why the promise of something for nothing, success without struggle, wealth without risk, or other clarion calls of similar nonsense should not dissuade us from our tasks. Don’t ever apologize for being skeptical. It means you are in good health.

TIME OUT IS GOOD FOR THE SOUL!

“Everything comes if a man will only wait.”

Tancred Norman Crusader (1078 –1112)

If this essay does nothing more than cause you to pause and reflect, it has accomplished its aim. Life is very short, and as a friend recently reminded me: “We hiccup and a day, a week, a month, a year has gone by, making it even shorter than we think.” So enjoy every moment. And you will always be well.

TIME OUT FOR SANITY! A BLUEPRINT FOR COPING IN A SICK SOCIETY

BACKGROUND REFERENCE:

During the Christmas holidays (2006) rummaging through my accumulated archives of published and unpublished materials, I came across this essay. It was written in the late 1970s after completing my stint in academia and receiving my Ph.D.  Although it became part of “A Look Back to See Ahead” (2007), and subsequently as a 2nd edition retitled “Time Out for Sanity: Blueprint for Dealing with an Anxious Society” (2015), it was never published.

“Is society sick?” was originally a ninety page essay with incidences now dated, but themes showing a stirring resemblance to themes in 2021. After reading this essay, ask yourself: has society moved towards healing, and if not, why not?”  

Note:

Originally published as an essay in my blog (peripateticphilosopher.blogspot.com January, 2006)

From the pages of “Time Out for Sanity: Blueprint for Dealing with an Anxious

Sunday, January 24, 2021

WHAT EVER HAPPENED TO THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS?

 

WHAT EVER HAPPENED TO THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS? 

 

James R. Fisher, Jr. © December 2003

 

The delight of having readers: 


Someone wrote to me out of the blue and referenced this essay of mine, which I could not find. Alas, Canadian George Daly found it among his archives and e-mailed it to me.

This was all initiated by a reader of whom I hadn’t heard from for some time.

She writes:

Two times today, my thoughts were with you.....and now wondering how you two are faring during this difficult time.

The first time when I sent an email to a friend ending the note with the hopes of them being safe and to be well along with wishes for a happier new year. Then, I found a copy of your article “What ever happened to the pursuit of happiness?" written December 2013.

Rereading it , I found good thoughts that are certainly applicable today ..... maybe even more so.

Anyhow, I just wanted to say I am thinking of you both, trust you are well and managing to cope with what is happening to our great country and the world. Thus far, I am fine, missing Bill, of course, but he is with me, I know. The family is supportive and attentive and I am grateful for friendships and good health.

My best wishes to you both along with your closing and now mine too.

Be well,

Mary



HAPPINESS as I remember it.


When I was a little boy, I was told by my da that our forefathers, to make as many people as possible happy and content, established American democracy.

It was during the Great Depression. In retrospect, it seems incongruous. Out of work but undaunted, he remained secure in the glory of the Declaration of Independence. He read this to me then:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

This declaration became the bible of my existence and blueprint to a long and fulfilling life. My wonder now, however, is what ever happened to that pursuit?

How many are yawning at the suggestion of this rhetorical question? If you are between the ages of 25 and 54, it is likely that you are. Pollsters tell us you are blasé about politics, bored to death with the media, and distrustful of government as if government is an entity beyond your concern, when you in fact are the government.

Consequently, when it comes to media coverage, you would prefer watching reruns of “The Simpsons,” “That 70’s Show” and “Friends” than tune into NBC, ABC or CBS nightly news between the hours of 6 and 8 pm.

At least that is the case in the Tampa Bay region here in Florida according to television critic, Walt Belcher. Is Tampa Bay an isolated case? I don’t think so. Nor do I think many men in this group, if they read newspapers at all, read much beyond the sports page or women other than the entertainment section. Call this sexist if you like, but prove me wrong. I don’t think you can.

Granted, I’m beyond advertisers’ gold fingers. I must confess I don’t watch much network news, preferring BBC World News, World News from Berlin, and the Jim Lehrer News Hour, all on PBS. The world news from London and Berlin provide another perspective, while the Jim Lehrer News Hour gives a balanced account of national and international news with opinion makers on all sides of an issue participating.

Inflation, depression, revolution and all matters of folly do not affect me to the degree they do the 25 to 54 age group. My slow boat has already left shore. Yet, it is me who is paying attention while those with the most to lose seemingly are otherwise occupied.

Syndicated columnist, Charley Reese, sometimes outrageous and always outspoken, who doesn’t fit into any comfortably predictable point of view, aims to dislodge preoccupation and let thoughtful consideration come forward. Recently, he wrote:

“Right now, the view among political, business and media elites is that the goal in life is to make as much money as possible and to accumulate as many toys as possible. The media are fascinated by the rich and often fawn over them. Politicians are always talking about economic prosperity as if that was the main goal of government. Business people watch every little blip of the stock market like a casino operator watches the daily take. Statistics are poured over like a fortuneteller looking at tealeaves.”

In other words the pursuit of wealth has been made synonymous with the pursuit of happiness. But does this pursuit have legs?

There is a great confusion between need and want. The American ethic would have you trade in a perfectly serviceable automobile (definition of need) for a bigger, more expensive, more powerful, and more enviable machine (definition of want) simply because you can. I was told only the other day that a friend of my daughter’s, now married, and just 30, has sold his $250,000 home for a $500,000 replacement because “he can afford it” on his $100,000 income. Need was not in the equation.

He who has the most toys is the winner, or is he?

The other night on the PBS Jim Lehrer News Hour there was a segment “Jobs on the Move.” It was about the hundreds of thousands of jobs of professional workers earning from $50,000 to $250,000 moving to such places as India. Why India?

First, India has a larger professional workforce of administrators, managers, engineers and scientists than the entire American work force – 150 million workers. Second, Indians will work for 10 percent of what their professional counterparts in the United States are paid. Third, while Americans are sleeping it is the workday in India.

So, in this new electronic age, enterprise can be covered 24 hours a day without sleep. This has telling consequences. A management consultant on the program envisioned between 3 and 5 million such high paying jobs leaving the US permanently in the next few years.

It is no longer manual laborers in the textile industry or blue-collar workers in manufacturing jobs across the nation who are vulnerable, but the best and the brightest our universities can produce. Are these 25 to 54 year old workers paying attention?

To put this into graphic terms, doctors can dictate their notes electronically, and while they sleep, have them transcribed in India, to be picked up in the morning before they make their rounds. Cost: $100/hour in the US versus $6/hour in India.

While the 24 to 54 age group is buying bigger and bigger houses, more and more expensive clothes, purchasing gas guzzling luxury cars and boats, playing golf, jet skiing or acquiring fashionable vacation homes in the sun, somebody else is eating their breakfast, and if they don’t watch out maybe their lunch and dinner as well.

We have had a 50-year aberration, which coincidentally corresponds to Hugh Hefner’s 50th anniversary of his creation of Playboy magazine, followed by the hedonistic paradise fostered by Playboy Enterprises. Hefner claims in a recent Time Magazine article that he doesn’t have a wife, but six girlfriends, none of whom is older than the age of a great granddaughter. I can imagine the 25 to 54 crowd laughing, “More power to you, Hef!”

Somehow lost in the pursuit of happiness, the idea has evolved – Hefner didn’t invent it – that “free love” was the ticket to happiness; that we were too uptight, too regimented, too constrained for our own good. The “sexual revolution” proved sex was neither love nor free, if you equate it with the rise in venereal disease, broken marriages, shattered lives of men as well as women, with the belief that any inconvenience or disagreement is meant for the parties to move on, not to work out their differences; that the way to peace is through the avoidance of pain, not through the embrace of fear.

Something is wrong with this picture. The world is catching up with the United States. It was bound to happen. Computers and electronics have perhaps speeded up the process by as much as 50 years. In time, wages about the world will come into balance. In time, new jobs will be created requiring different tools and skills, changing the calculus of this eternal flux. In time, it will prove insane to hide behind protective tariffs and “us against them” games. In time, we will realize we are part of a mutually interdependent global village. In time, Americans will have no other choice than to finally grow up.

What is the spice of life? Is it toys? Is it conspicuous consumption? Americans are 5 percent of the world’s population consuming 25 percent of the world's fossil fuel. Is it graduating more MBAs than the rest of the world combined, while foreign students dominate our universities, arguably the best in the world, in mathematics and science programs?

The spice of life, says Dr. Hans Selye, world-renowned pioneer in biological science, is stress. Without stress, there is no life and we are all vegetables. The absence of stress does not produce happiness, but is more likely to lead to distress. This is simply a matter of mismanaged stress. It produces ulcers, heart disease and other ailments.

There is the belief that the pursuit of happiness involves having the most toys, the ideal job, the perfect marriage, and the freest time without any care in the world. Wrong!

Just as there is confusion between need and want there is similar confusion between aims and means. Selye writes,

“To start with, a clear distinction must be made between our final aims – the ultimate achievements that give purpose to life – and the means through which we hope to attain them. For example, money is never a final aim; it has no value in itself. It can only act as a means, helping us to reach some ultimate goal which, to us, has inherent value.”

The pursuit of happiness will bring no peace of mind if the differences between aims and means are not understood. Means are good only to reach some final accomplishment which deep in our soul we can truly respect. With happy people this is usually the urge for self-expression doing what brings them pleasure, and comfort to others, in other words some kind of work.

Dignity doesn’t come simply with a paycheck. Dignity comes with self-respect, and that comes, as Tampa Tribune editorial columnist Joseph Brown puts it, “with the best attitude even toward a minimum-wage job.” He quotes Martin Luther King:

“If you are called to be a street sweeper, sweep streets even as Michelangelo painted, or Beethoven composed music, or Shakespeare wrote poetry. Sweep streets so well that all the hosts of heaven and earth will pause to say, ‘Here lived a great street sweeper who did his job well.’”

There is nothing wrong with society producing millionaires or even billionaires. These entrepreneurs capture science, convert it into new technology, which generates the need for new tools, which in turn necessitates the development of new sets of skills.

Where it gets confusing is when people see the wealth of a Bill Gates and that is all they see. They don’t see a pioneer, risk taker, adventurer, philanthropist, only ostentatious wealth. They don’t see the pursuit of happiness as the journey that it is. They prefer instead to see it as an end in itself. They don’t see the hard work.

If hard work were missing, there would be no outlet to self-expression, which is fundamental to this pursuit. Nor do they see the cumulative effect of the constant embrace of adversity, challenge, setback and failure. These are fundamental in the pursuit of happiness; otherwise there would be no authentic long-range aim.

Several years ago, surrounding by my executive colleagues in a restaurant in Amsterdam, Holland, somebody said, “What would you really like to do?” Not one of us said it was what we were doing. It reminded me of the final lines of the Sinclair Lewis novel, Babbitt, where middle-aged real estate broker, George F. Babbitt confesses, “I never did a single thing in my whole life that I wanted to do.” The book was a social satire of the 1920s. It would appear Babbitt still lives.

* * * * *

James R. Fisher, Jr., Ph.D., author of seven books in the genre of industrial psychology, has just written his first novel, In the Shadow of the Courthouse: Memoir of the 1940s Written as a Novel. He is a former corporate executive of Honeywell Europe, SA. His books are available on line with www.amazon.com, www.barnes&noble.com, www.borders.com, www.1stbooks.com, or at your favorite bookstore. He may be reached by email at TheDeltaGrpFL@cs.com

Wednesday, January 20, 2021

GOD IN THE MIDDLE -- PART THREE

 NOTE

This trilogy was created during an equally divisive period to the present, two years ago. 

Comments to the right and left on GOD IN THE MIDDLE to me were often equally venomous, with readers clearly exercised far removed from "the God thing."  

Many respondents no doubt read a lot, but it would seem only what reinforces their own belief systems, systems of course that they deny having.  

Contrast this with the individuals mentioned in these three essays.  Many lived more than 500 years ago, individuals attempting to understand their times and the meaning of life and, yes, religion too, as religion was important to many of them.  

They were not searchers but creators.  Nor were they echo chambers of the prevalent ideas of their times.  They were thinkers creating their own sense of things.  Many of their ideas have become part of our Western culture.  

That said, they were people differing little with us.  In teaching us, they were primarily finding resonance with their own existence.  They were not interested in impressing but in being understood and being understandable.  

These essays are offered in that light.

JRF

 

The Peripatetic Philosopher ruminates about God in the Middle -- Part Three

 

 GOD IN THE MIDDLE

 

Part Three

 

 “The Inner Self as Legacy to the Enlightenment.”

 

James R. Fisher, Jr., Ph.D.

© February 8, 2019

 

The foundations of identity were laid with the perception of a disjunction between one’s inside and one’s outside.  Individuals come to believe that they have a true or authentic identity hiding within themselves that is somehow at odds with the role they are assigned by their surrounding society.

Francis Fukuyama, Identity: The Demand for Dignity and The Politics of Resentment (2018)


INSIDE AND OUTSIDE MAN

It all started 500 years ago.  In the West, the idea of identity was born during the Protestant Reformation.  It was launched by a bold and apocryphal move by Martin Luther in 1517 to post his protests to Catholic Church indulgences on the Wittenberg church door.  The quiet Augustinian friar had struggled for ten years with his inner self while he read and taught and performed his duties as a priest.  Biographer Richard Marius in “Martin Luther” (1999) saw the monk as a Christian between God and Death:

 "He found himself in a state of despair before God.  He wanted the assurance of being acceptable to God, but could discover in himself only the certainty of sin and in God only an inexorable justice which condemned to futility all his efforts at repentance and his search for the divine mercy.” 

Luther came to understand that the Church acted only on the outer person through such rituals as confession, penance, tithing and worship of the saints.  None of which could make a difference in one’s authentic existence because grace did not need a church as grace was a free act of a loving God.

Thus Luther was one of the first Western thinkers to validate the “inner self” over the external social being.  He insisted that man had a twofold nature: an inner spiritual one and an outer bodily being, but only the inner man could be renewed.

This placed the individual, paradoxically, in the center of the dialogue on the Nature of Man.

By the single act of making faith alone the central doctrine of Protestantism, it undercut the 1500 legitimacy of the Roman Catholic Church.

That said, the Church remained the intermediary between man and God, but it could only shape the outer man through its rites and rituals, ceremonies and works.  It could not touch the inner man by rationale or definition.

Luther was not the disgruntled teenager brought back to obedience by society, but rather through due diligence and initiative, he put on notice that society itself would now have to adjust to the demands of the inner person.  The idea of democracy would have to gestate for more than 250 years to comprehend and assimilate this idea.

Nothing again would be the same in Christendom as this marked the beginning of the decline of the Universal (Catholic) Church and the rise of scores of alternative churches with God in the Middle.

Whether the monumental changes that led to modernity can be put at the door of Wittenberg and Luther or not, a series of propitious changes occurred in rapid succession. 

In 1439 Gutenberg had invented the movable type printing press.  Books now flourished in the 1530s with Luther’s translation of the Bible into German to create a sense of identity among the German people.  Translations of the Bible in other languages had the same affect.

New ideas on trade and commerce sparked the creation of what would be eventually called capitalism.  This gave rapid rise to industrialization with new methods of producing goods and delivering services as material forces were being driven by new technologies legitimized by the changes in the way people thought about things.

On the plane of ideas, the distinction between the inner and outer, seeded by Luther, would occupy philosophers for generations to come as modern man struggled with the new idea of personal identity as identity with the Church faded.

[My own empirical work over the past fifty years has found me exploring the deep layers of the “inner self” from the conscious to the subconscious to the subtext level of confidence in which identity ultimately becomes axiomatic.]

Read the “Confessions of St. Augustine” and you will see that this Christian of the 4th and 5th centuries took a uniquely private and introspective journey to uncover his “inner self,” although he did not disparage the Church in this quest, or feel the necessity of a new identity, but remained an institutional Roman Catholic to the end.    

In that same vein, while rejecting the Universal Church, Luther accepted completely the legitimacy and underlying truths of Christianity.

Marius in his “Martin Luther biography” (The Christian Between God and Death) documents the monk’s painful quest for personal clarity, questioning Church authority and the theology of penance.

Then there was the auspicious timing of the “Reformation.” seeded as it was by the failed “Peasant’s War of 1525” in which 100,000 of the 300,000 German peasant farmers were slaughtered by armies of the aristocracy of The Holy Roman Empire.

In that climate, Luther resolutely attacks the celebrated cleric, Desiderius Erasmus, who remained in the Church to lead the Counter Reformation, making the young monk a rebel with a cause in an intellectual army of one.

German American philosopher Hannah Arendt has an explanation for this while referencing her own disposition:

“One first has to think in dialogue with oneself and reach an agreement with oneself.  The principle of agreement with oneself is very old.  It was actually discovered by Socrates whose central tenet, as formulated by Plato, is contained in the sentence: ‘Since I am one, it is better for me to disagree with the whole world than to be in disagreement with myself.’”

This is consistent with the idea that one must conduct oneself in such a way that the principle of one’s actions becomes a general law.  Kant’s categorical imperative is based upon the necessity for rational thought to agree with itself.

[Those in modern times who agree with this rationale have likely been influenced by David Riesman’s book, “The Lonely Crowd” (1950).  Riesman came up with the idea of the “inner-directed” and “outer-directed” person, with the former personified in a personality that is self-directed and self-reliant, while the latter personality tends to be “other directed” as a conformist and pleaser of others, or part of the herd mentality.]

 THE EUROPEAN ENLIGHTENMENT & SOME OF ITS PHILOSOPHICAL LIGHTS

By the end of the 18th century, the “inner man” was the core of modern identity and had evolved into a secular form.  Philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau played a central role in this identity.  His thinking would lead to such modern trends as democracy, human rights, communism, the discipline of anthropology, and environmentalism.  For Rousseau, the natural goodness of the “inner self” was a theme tied to his political, social and personal writing.

Luther believed in Original Sin seeing human beings as fallen creatures redeemable by God’s love, alone.  Rousseau in “Discourse on the Origins of Inequality” argues that the first human being as man in the state of nature was not sinful.  He romanticizes early man for whom sex was natural but not the family; where sin and evil – jealousy, greed, violence and hatred did not exist.  There was no original society.  For him, human unhappiness begins with the discovery of society.

In Rousseau’s account, man’s descent into society began by the mastering of animals.  Man started to cooperate for his mutual protection and with that surfaced the idea of pride and the perception of relationships.  This was given expression in words: great, little, strong, weak, swift, slow, fearful, bold, and other comparisons. 

The ability to compare and to evaluate other human beings was the fountainhead of human unhappiness.

Rousseau denounces the shift from “love of self” to “self-love” or vanity, seeing self-interest is transmuted into feelings of pride and the desire for social recognition.  From hunters and gatherers, human beings became farmers with the necessity of accumulating property.  He writes in the Discourse:

The first person who having enclosed some land, took it upon himself to say “This is mine,” and found people simpleminded enough to believe him, was the true founder of civil society.

Rousseau argues crimes, wars, murders, miseries and horrors followed.  He attempts to walk mankind back with the first lines of his famous The Social Contract:

“Man was born free, and he is everywhere in chains.”

These “chains” are the constraints placed on the freedom of citizens in modern states.

Francis Fukuyama in “Identity” (2018) traces Rousseau’s sentiments to morphing to what are called today, “identity politics.”  We see this in The United States Congress where polarity and gridlock prevent consensus and cooperation, and therefore effective governance.

What Rousseau asserts is that a thing called “society,” exists outside the individual.  Indeed, on the corporate organizational level, a mass of rules, regulations, relationships, injunctions and customs have become an obstacle to the realization of human potential, and therefore, human happiness.

The reason for this French philosopher's continued relevance is that he saw a sharp distinction between the “inner self” and the “outer society.”  But unlike Luther, the freedom of the inner individual does not lie only in his ability to accept the grace of God.  But rather, it lies in the natural ability of the individual to experience the sentiments of existence free of layers of accumulated social convention.  In this sense, it is similar to Isiah Berlin’s idea of “negative freedom” discussed elsewhere in these missives.

Fukuyama sees Rousseau’s secularization of the “inner self” from social convention as the stepping stone to the modern idea of identity and recognition.  In other words, the pressing dominance of social convention, now more intense than ever before through social media, is the foundation of human unhappiness manifested in a psychotherapy and drug dependent society.  Fukuyama writes:

The recovery of the inner self thus required divesting oneself of the need for social recognition; the solitary dreamer does not need anyone’s approval.

Of course, we know while much of what Rousseau espouses has merit he was wrong about man, early man or otherwise, being one-dimensional.  We also know that feelings of pride and self-esteem can be effectively manipulated by parents, teachers, preachers, bosses, advertisers, the media, entertainers, politicians and friends to ends not necessarily in our own best interests.

It is no accident that we are essentially a robotic society given to be mobilized by special interests to their given ends.  We see this when asked to respond to why we think, believe, behave and feel about God, religion, work, marriage, the government, education or the basis of the choices we make.  That is because all the characteristics that make up the “inner self” are not fixed.  The evidence?

We may run away from the idea of God, for example, but be as resolute in our new belief system as we had been before.  The same relates to work and marriage and life in general.  We constantly run back into ourselves repeating the same errors in the new situation that we rebelled against in the old.  We cannot lose ourselves.

German philosopher Immanuel Kant, like Rousseau, wrestled with this in terms of reason and moral choice.  Kant asserts that we can point to nothing as unconditionally good other than good will and the capacity for moral choice.  He did not see this as a Christian concept or in religious terms, but as the ability to follow strict rules of reason for their own sake. 

The human capacity for moral choice means that we are not machines subject to the laws of physics, but can be moral agents independent of our material environment.

Because we have the capacity to reason, Kant insists, moral choice does not need to be treated as ends to other means, but ends in themselves. 

We manifest good will not because of what it will lead to but for its own sake.  Human dignity revolves around the human will where we are genuine agents of uncaused causes.

THE “INNER SELF” & INDIVIDUALISM

 German philosopher Friedrich Hegel accepted the link between moral choice and human dignity with the individual a morally free agent and not simply a rational machine seeking maximum satisfaction.  But unlike Rousseau and Kant, he put recognition at the center of the human condition.  He advised:

From birth on, human history is driven by a struggle for recognition.

This drives the soldier to risk his life, not for territory, not for wealth, but for recognition itself as a patriotic citizen.  A worker doesn’t simply work for wages and benefits but for the acquired dignity and recognition of what he is doing. 

We know who we are by what we do.

For Hegel, however, it is not primarily an individual journey into the self as with Rousseau, but is primarily politically motivated.  The great conflict of his day was the French Revolution and the “Rights of Man.”

By the early 19th century, the elements of the modern concept of equal dignity for everyone under the law was the mantra of the American Revolution (1776) and French Revolution (1789) with the understanding that the dignity of the “inner self” rests on its moral freedom.

The democratic upsurge that would unfold in the two centuries after these revolutions was driven by people demanding recognition of their political personhood.

Expressive individualism would also be seeded by Scottish economist and philosopher Adam Smith and then British philosophers John Locke and finally by John Stuart Mill.  They put a pragmatic and empirical stamp on the movement towards capitalism in economics and to democracy in politics.

Smith’s laissez-faire philosophy was to minimize the role of government intervention and taxation in free market economies with the idea of an “invisible hand” guiding the supply and demand of commerce. 

Locke focused on human motivation and behavior, believing human nature allowed people to be selfish with the natural tendency to follow their self-interests. 

Mill was the most influential English language philosopher of the 19th century whose work explored the consequences of a thoroughgoing empiricist outlook. 

These “Enlightened Age” thinkers believed that successful governance depends not on idealism but balance between individual freedom and political equality; between the state exercising legitimate power and institutional laws providing the appropriate constrains.  It was Mill, however, who put temperance into his philosophy, advocating population limits and slow economic growth.  He believed this would be equally beneficial to the environment and the public good.  He was a naturalist, a utilitarian and a liberal who cautioned:

 “Actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong if instead they produce the reverse of happiness.”   

THE “INNER SELF” BECOMES OBSESSIVE, INTRODUCING THE NEW MODERN ERA

The expression the “inner self” soon became the key to dignity and recognition.  Christianity universalized people being capable of making moral choices.  This was secularized by Kant in the form of rational moral rules.  Rousseau added the idea that the inner moral self was not just capable of binary moral choice, good or evil, but was filled with personal feelings suppressed by the surrounding society.  

Dignity now centered on the recovery of that authentic “inner self” that society now must recognize in every human being.

Rousseau’s powerful idea is that each individual has an “inner self” buried deep within; that it is unique and a source of creativity; that this self has equal value to all others; that this self is expressed through feelings and not through reason; and that this “inner self” is the basis of human dignity, recognized in such political documents as the American Declaration of Independence.

Rousseau’s influence is obvious in Goethe’s The Sorrows of Young Werther; in the paintings of Vincent van Gogh; in the novels of Franz Kafka; and in the philosophy of Friedrich Nietzsche who expanded the scope of human autonomy with the figure of Zarathustra and individualism in Beyond Good and Evil.   

By the late 20th century, the scope of the “inner self” and individual autonomy reached a fever pitch with the clamor to define one’s own existence as well as the meaning of life irrespective of what society, the government or the church advocated.   

In the Christian tradition, the “inner self” was the source of Original Sin, but now it was simply moral choice. 

A wave of promoters of self-esteem and personal improvement followed.  There was Abraham Maslow “Hierarchy of Needs,” Robert Schuller’s “Hour of Power,” who also wrote a book, “Self-Esteem: The New Revolution,” and Robert Warren’s “Purpose Driven Life.” 

By the end of the 20th century, more than 30 percent of the American upper middle class was in therapy complaining of lacking self-esteem and happiness, while being in the top 10 percent of the American economy in terms of income.  Today, they are supporting more than a half million psychotherapists across the United States.

Christopher Lasch argues against this trend in "The Culture of Narcissism" (1979) insisting that the obsession with human potential and self-esteem would instead lead to a crippling invasive cultural self-indulgence.  This in term leads to the depoliticizing of society in which social justice is reduced to personal angst and psychological problems.  Lasch died more than a score of years before Donald Trump, a nonpolitician, who would become President of the United States.

Lasch could envision the long decline of the United States accompanied by the rapid rise of a therapeutic society dependent on psychotherapy.  Bernard Zilbergeld would confirm this prognosis four years later in “The Shrinking of America: Myths of Psychological Change” (1983).

Today, the question of identity has become central to the life of many Americans. 

We now have battles over ethnicity, sexual identity, sexual politics, sexual orientation, gay rights, racial equality (“Black Lives Matter!”), gender politics, organized religion, God, the meaning of life, inequality, ecology, feminism, Native Americanism, capitalism, socialism, communism, social justice, human biology, education, liberalism, conservatism, self-esteem, dignity, recognition, freedom (negative & positive), happiness, social responsibility, moral responsibility, robotics, automation, good and evil, spiritualism, materialism, multiculturalism, war, peace, nuclear holocaust, environmentalism, global warming, civil war, national identity, ethnocentric nationalism, radicalism, immigration, personhood, the common good, ethnic cleansing, hegemony, terrorism, civil religion, civil liberty, professionalism, work ethic, knowledge power, position power, politics of anger, polarization, gridlock, natural/national language, political correctness, civil religion, citizenship, crime, wealth, poverty, celebrity worship, cyberspace, “Big Brother,” dystopia, and the beat goes on.

Identity and the “inner self” has come to underlie philosophy and the political climate today, yet identity and the buried “inner self” is neither fixed nor given to us by the accident of birth.  This sense of identity can be used to divide or pragmatically unite and integrate us.  This integration will happen when we lose our fascination with standing apart and discover our capacity of standing together.