Spontaneity

The following is YARM (Yet Another ReMaster) based on the premise that change equates to happiness:

As I have argued (contended, speculated, etc.) in previous posts (most recently in The Key to Happiness), change has proven itself to be a mandatory component of happiness, and in some senses can be considered happiness itself. But as I think about it now, this is most definitely not the case.

I did not realize it before because (conveniently) I had not ask the question (Why?), or more specifically, “What is the purpose of change?” Well, to some extent I had, but (ironically) I was seeking different answers, such as the relationship between us, change, and the various components that make up our evolution.

Change is indeed a very broad topic, so it’s only natural that the answers and (by default) questions are great in number and, considering the underlying mystical nature it has proven itself to have, the questions and answers might well be infinite. But these aspects of change I have become aware of for now:

1. Change is necessary for contrast.

2. Contrast is necessary for appreciation.

3. Appreciation is necessary for balance, because only then can we become one with the true flow of the opposites.

Such a nexus (the merging of “one” and “all”) is called submersion, and the extent to which we achieve the balance that is submersion determines the extent to which we can truly experience life.

For a blog post detailing these aspects (and confuse the heck out of you), see Idealism.

Of course, I cannot possibly fully explain such deep concepts (I failed to do so in Idealism, and that stuff is so deep that I don’t understand it myself, even though I’m the one the wrote it!)– any attempts to explain them would instead (apparently!) further complicate them; but in spite of this, I’m planning to write (or should I say “compile”) several books to do just that anyway.

As I see it, change does not actually make us happy; rather, it gives us the opportunity to appreciate the happiness that already exists. This means that there are certain components of change that serve as catalysts in bringing happiness to our attention.

By asking “Why?”, I’m provided with some very amazing insights into the nature of happiness:

Change results in contrast– i.e. Light can only exist because darkness does, and vice-versa. Furthermore, one can only know of the existence of either when both extremes have presented themselves, and how much a person can appreciate either is directly proportional to the relative amount of time past since those changes, and the amount of difference between these extremes as ascertained by that person.

These factors determine how much they will be able to appreciate change, how long the effects will last, and naturally, how much happiness they will gain from such experiences, and how long the happiness will last.

To better understand this, I’ll provide the analogy power transfer:

There are three aspects of electrical flow: Flow (Amps), Pressure (Volts), and Resistance (Ohms), and together these produce power (Happiness). Happiness is always flowing everywhere, but without Desire (Pressure) and Fear (Resistance), we cannot appreciate that happiness.

*Fear exists to protect social happiness, at the price of sacrificing individual happiness. Such happiness is motivated by a need for security, but if emphasized to the extreme, leads to feelings of helplessness, and eventually suicide. When manifested, fear takes the form of control.

*Desire exists to protect individual happiness, at the price of sacrificing the happiness of others. Such happiness is motivated by a need for change, but if emphasized to the extreme, can lead to self-sabotage, sociopathic behavior, and criminal activity. When manifested, desire takes the form of chaos.

*A true happiness can only be found in a Balance between these extremes, and ideally is found by aligning personal desires with that of the collective, or vice-versa.

Thus, happiness takes three primary forms: Control, Chaos, and a mix between the two (Balance). All forms of happiness, as explained in The Key to Happiness, are appreciated through fulfillment, either of the self (desire) or the collective (fear).

The irony of this is that desire motivates escaping the self, whereas fear motivates the preserving of oneself. There are many reasons for this apparent contradiction, but all of them are founded in the human nature: our purpose is to experience life (of which change is prerequisite), and so that we might survive, we are social creatures– thus, improvement of the collective is improvement of the self, and vice-versa. Or to paraphrase Hegel, The Soul (Geist) loses itself so that it might find itself.

A person’s appreciation of change and (by association) contrast, determines their level of appreciation and recognition of the forces of the universe, and in particular the extremes (thesis and antithesis) One could say that fear is the thesis, where “thesis” refers to status quo (the state of things). “antithesis” (motivated by desire) refers to change– specifically, changing the status quo.

It is from this knowledge that I first reached the conclusion that happiness is a state of balance, and that such a balance requires recognition and appreciation of the extremes. Change meets these requirements in an impressively natural manner, thus granting us the indulgence of ecstasy.

Another important thing to note: To doubt refers to the rejection of change, whereas to expect refers to accepting change.

Because every change in the world changes both the self and the world, I once thought that no one can ever actually be happy, because happiness requires change, and change requires killing the old self off in favor of the new (see Heraclitus’s “Everything Flows” philosophy). But that is only a happiness found in Spontaneity– losing oneself to find oneself. Things are not good enough, so we seek to find something better, and when we find it, we achieve happiness in that fulfillment. There is another type of happiness found in rejecting change, and achieving fulfillment in putting value on the status quo. This type of happiness, which is motivated by control, allows one to be happy without having to lose oneself.

But then there is a third way to achieve happiness– one that doesn’t “miss the point”, and that is pure experience. One does not change to lose the self, nor reject change to preserve the status quo. It is spiritually more evolved than either, to the point that change (and by extension, time), and thus status quo, becomes irrelevant. By completely immersing yourself with your environment, there is no need to validate the self (change) or the collective (status quo)– all that matters is the experience. This type of self-evident peace of mind is what Buddha achieved: Nirvana.

The key to not “missing the point” then is to make the point, and all aspects of life that it affects, irrelevant.

This also answers a question that has been in the back of my head for some time- “Why does happiness not last?” The answer is simple: Because change does not last. To some extent or other, we all have to settle down and accept the fact that in order for our needs, and especially our greatest desires to be met, we must be responsible by maintaining status quo.

In this day and age, change is considered (understandably) an enemy to efficiency, and so we use all forms of media (in particular visual media) to experience change without have to actually take part in them– thus, happiness is felt without the otherwise intolerably great penalties to efficiency.

In the past, life was slow, and lapses of inefficiency were tolerable– even welcomed and encouraged. Things likely needed to be that way, so as to ensure that happiness remained a part of life.

Books, although they do indeed serve as sources of happiness, are insufficient by themselves, as they lack interaction and require a forced-immersion by means of the imagination. They were never meant to be the sole source of happiness but to be used in conjunction with more interactive forms. Ironically, the higher forms of technology are the result of striving for greater efficiency– Video games, computers, and even TV– require a fast-paced society to support. The ironic part of all this is that now we heavily rely on these technologies to give us the efficiency required to upkeep them in the first place.

This is a noteworthy example of the premise I have come to adopt: “Anything we lose we will gain back in some form as a result, and vice versa.

Thus, although I have observed and confirmed that both visual and auditory media are highly addictive in nature, our need for them lies not just in the addiction itself [neural reliance], but in the universal need for happiness as well.

In addition, as I have noted in previous posts, there are many things that we cannot experience and gain knowledge of (much of which is beneficial) without the aid of visual and/or auditory media.

Books are by contrast very inefficient, because the changes take place (perceptively) very slowly. Reading an entire book could potentially take over 200 hours depending on the ready, and a movie that possesses relatively the same amount of change will indiscriminately take the same amount of time for everyone, i.e. 2.5 hours. So this leaves me 2 options if I am to live efficiently:

(1) conform to the practices that are mainstream in the civilized world (particularly in Japan), and rely on visual / auditory media, accepting the inevitable neural reliance (addiction) thereof.

(2) Live a lifestyle that can satisfy myneed for change while at the same time satisfy efficiency, by incorporating the changes into my actual life (rather than just an activity).

Perhaps I will one day have to settle down, and the second option will not be as plausible (or as attractive), but at least for now– this is not just an option, it is (for me) a necessity. I need to travel the world, and experience life to the fullest. There is just so much to experience, and I think that such a lifestyle of adventure would suit me perfectly. I might become homeless, poverty-stricken, and mal-nourished at one point or other, but then again, I want to be.

All of these experiences– painful as they may be, are “givens” if I am to satisfy my hunger for knowledge in these areas– motivation, adaptation, and all the different psychological aspects associates with many different types of hardships.

Of course the decision has not been made; even if I decide to go through with it, it would not be for at least two more years. But to better understand it, I have explored these things.