adversity

Fantastic discussion today, thanks to the willingness of class members to share their own stories and challenges. Turns out we moved beyond chapter 7 ("The Uses of Adversity") prematurely, Tobi's question about focus in the present brought us back to it.

Childhood disease or abuse, traumatic stress in the theater of war that then threatens to disturb the peace (your own, and that of the people you love), human brutality towards fellow humans who happen to be vulnerable because young or weak, mental illness, respiratory failure... the sources of adversity in life are practically endless, and it can sound heartless to tell the victim to buck up and move ahead. "That's life." Right. But that doesn't make it easy.

But of course, we have no happy alternative to re-gathering our resources, concentrating our force as will and ability allow, and moving forward as best we can. It's made a lot easier when your fellow humans sympathize and lend support. Even just moral support.

Here's a positive point Haidt makes about one of the useful strategies available to us all: if you can't bring yourself to talk it out---or even if you can-- write it down. "You have to use words, and the words have to help you create a meaningful story. If you can write such a story you can reap the benefits of reappraisal... even years after an event. You can close a chapter of your life that was still open, still affecting your thoughts and preventing you from moving on with the larger narrative. Anyone, therefore, can benefit from adversity..."

But after all, "major adversity is unlikely to have many-- or perhaps any-- beneficial effects for children."

Which is not to say that you shouldn't always look for silver linings. But wouldn't it be nice if we could eliminate more of those ugly black clouds in the first place?

happy yet?

Are we having fun, in Happiness 101?

I know I did today, from the small ovation acknowledging that I'm not dead yet-- health and the drugs that are helping restore it are at the top of my happy list today-- to the Python song ("Is mankind evolving or is it too late?") through the discussions of virtue, transcendence, and Herodotus.

"Call no man happy 'till he dies," btw, is said to be a misattribution. "Herodotus actually attributes this to Solon..." And several variants are on record, including "Deem no man happy, until he passes the end of his life without suffering grief." Hmmm. That sheds some light on things. If that's what he said, I have to disagree emphatically. We're a more resilient species than that. I grieved hard for my parents last year, it hurt a lot... and I'm happy today. Yesterday too.

Hope we talk again about "trans-end-dance," moving beyond the "end" really is a crucial step towards permanent personal flourishing. And think some more about what you'd do if you knew you had a day to live. If you can answer that honestly, you'll know what makes you happy-- at least on my reckoning. No bucket list here.

I agree with those who say we shouldn't constantly pester ourselves with that question, but I still see no harm and lots of benefit in saying to yourself as often as you can (and mean it): "I'm happy!"

Don't forget to look at that other Python clip, if you really want to know the meaning of life.

One more thing I meant to to mention today: the "most-emailed" New York Times article in recent days has been Maureen Dowd's column claiming women are less happy than men. True?

Next up: Monsieur Ricard, the monk of Monk and Philosopher fame. Who knew a Frenchman could radiate such bliss? What would Sartre* say?

*Here's what he said: "Ah, and the myth of Happiness; there are those spellbinding slogans which advise you how to be happy as quickly as possible; there are the films with the happy endings, which every evening show life in rose colors to harassed crowds.

There is that language, laden with optimistic expressions, "Having a good time," "enjoy yourself," "life is fun," "Don't worry, be happy," etc. - and then there are those who are pursued into the most conformist happiness by an obscure malaise that does not know what to call itself... An American said to me, "The trouble is that each of us is haunted by the fear of being less American than his neighbor."

real virtue

Maybe it is time to trot out again old Ben Franklin's proposal for a new political party, our old ones haven't worked well together for a very long time. A United Party for Virtue, composed of excellence-seekers "acting only with a view to the good of mankind," is a pretty dream. (Hap Hyp, ch8).

But could just anybody join, on their mere word of wishing to transcend sect and narrow self-interest? I know what we'd all soon be shouting at one another: "You lie!"

Still, Aristotelian virtue-- maximizing potential, pursuing purpose, selflessly embracing the common interest-- sounds really good. It sounds excellent, in fact. Arete!

(Don't know much about Aristotle? Here's a three-minute primer from a vulgar Aussie-- mildly amusing, slightly informative.)

And Poor Richard is a good model of virtue in the American grain, not "goody goody" but (as Maira Kalman illustrates) with good and industrious intentions and a whole lot of zest and sparkle and wit. Sign me up.

And btw: HBO captured him perfectly, I hope. I much prefer his spirited wisdom to John Adams' New England testiness, even though I don't much follow Old Ben's advice about public anonymity. But young Ben, I'll bet-- the printer and Almanac publisher-- woulda been a blogger, under one name or another.

Can't say much for his singing in 1776, though.

driven to distraction

On balance, today's class was good. Wasn't it?

Sure, it threatenend at moments to degenerate into a "town hall," I think that was our moderator's frustrated judgment. As I said to her afterward: we humans could all do a better job of expressing our disagreements without implied rancor, and without trying to hog the arena. I include myself in that critique.

We should go out of our way to be explicit about this: our views may differ, but I'm open to what you can teach me. Jonathan Haidt is deliciously on target: "each of us thinks we see the world directly, as it really is." It's always the other guy who's blinded by interest and ideology.

But William James said it first and said it better in On a Certain Blindness in Human Beings: If you don't agree with me, you must be blind. That's the ancestral blindness we all inherit. Let's all try harder to remove the motes from our eyes, to speak in turn, and to give one another a fair and respectful hearing.

And that's exactly what we've been doing, during most of our class-time. Lots of interesting things came up again today, and while one of us thought we were in danger of going around in circles I think we were going up and down and all around, and I think that's cool.

So, can there be a false sense of happiness? Are we distracted from the real deal by our drugs and our families and our various worldly attachments (material and organic)? Can you be spiritually and relationally connected but not attached? What's "natural" for humans, and what's so special about being natural anyway? Isn't it sad when children are denied nurture, instruction, and bonded love with other humans who can show them how we live together? And most surprising to me: can feral children be happy, in human terms? So what, if they can't? I didn't know there was an issue here, but I happily await my re-education on the point.

I did a journal reply myself today, and will do so again. I wrote: since happiness is, whatever else it is-- a virtue, a trait of character, a myth,...-- an experience, we shouldn't be casually dismissive of happy episodes just because they don't last forever. What does? Sic transit, Gloria! Between never and forever there are lots of good moments and hours for beings like ourselves to savor and enjoy. Take your transitory happiness as it comes, don't de-value it just because it must go.

And, whatever else it is, happiness must be a feeling of at-homeness in the universe, in our communities, in our classroooms, in our homes. If that feeling is a distraction, distract me.

Opening minds

A conscientious young liberal of my acquaintance, a "rising 9th-grader," told me yesterday that he makes a point of listening periodically to local talk radio troglodyte Phil Valentine. Exposing himself to narrow and intolerant thinking (if you want to call it that) will better inform his own burgeoning progressivism and balance his own perspective, he supposes.

According to Jonathan Haidt (as related by Nicholas Kristof), that's a well-intentioned but unpromising strategy. Listening to Limbaugh and other shouting ideologues, on whichever end of the spectrum, does not create sympathy for their views in those not predisposed to sympathize.

A study by Diana Mutz of the University of Pennsylvania found that when people saw tight television shots of blowhards with whom they disagreed, they felt that the other side was even less legitimate than before... we often form judgments through flash intuitions that aren’t a result of a deliberative process. The crucial part of the brain for these judgments is the medial prefrontal cortex, which has more to do with moralizing than with rationality...

“Minds are very hard things to open, and the best way to open the mind is through the heart,” Professor Haidt says. “Our minds were not designed by evolution to discover the truth; they were designed to play social games.”

So what should my young friend do to expand his openness to those with a different point of view? Don't tune in to the loudmouths. Take a quiet conservative to lunch.