Skip to main content

Happiness is Not Easy

 

Happiness is Not Easy

If you want to be happy, be. --- Leo Tolstoy

Introduction. Whoa! Tolstoy’s counsel is not so easy in our highly conflicted world, with everyone seeking to change us or imposing changes upon us. But our present world has little to do with it. Happiness is a state, though some claim happiness is ephemeral while others suggest it can be permanent. We claim this is too simplistic.  So let’s instead look at states of happiness, not so much as an evolution, not a variable, but mostly constant and immutable.

We dismiss the usual forms of happiness, including the hedonic, social, achievement, materialistic, mindfulness, philanthropic, spiritual, health, and creative. These are specific forms from which happiness is sometimes attained. They are subsumed by the general states considered here. We dismiss as well other aspects, or subtypes of happiness including joy, contentment, hope, serenity, gratitude, satisfaction, optimism, fulfillment, amusement, bliss, and inner peace.  Yet, all can be components of the various general and persistent states of happiness considered below. A final note is that we’re not discussing moods, which all people cycle through their lives. We focus on the general states of happiness.

Five States of Happiness

Happy: You’re happy all or most of the time. Your life, relationships, job, family, etc bring constant joy to your life. Sure, there are downturns, but only temporary ones. You see brightness in your life in any or many of the forms. One may consider spirituality as happy, but it is more a responsibility seeking concordance with precepts of a higher consciousness.

Unhappy: You’re unhappy most of the time. There is something just not right; something interferes with your well-being. If only you could fix this or strife was eased, then you’d be happy. But you are not aware that even with a fix, something else appears, and the unhappiness returns. This does not preclude your continual search for happiness. In some cases, you simply want more, being always distracted or dissatisfied; in other cases, happiness is long past.

Future Happy: You’re not happy now, but you are pursuing a goal or something that you are certain will bring happiness. It could be a great job, a college degree, a publication, or maybe marriage. It can work, or not. Put this more simply in the single idea, “If only xxx, then I’d be happy. Future happiness is not unlike gambling.

Optimally happy: You are not happy as in always joyous, but you have received much from life, such as a family, a job, material comfort, love, health, and more. Still, you worry about things knowing you don’t have much to complain or be unhappy about. From this conflict, it is safe to conclude you’re as happy as you can be. This is not too bad. Once acknowledged, you find you’re quite happy. You are optimally happy.

Manic happy: You’re happy one day, unhappy the next. This persists year after year, sometimes with the happy state needing more juice to activate. Manic nappiness is cyclic, of course, but surely deteriorates one’s mental health in the long term.

Conclusions. While always being happy is theoretically preferred by most, probably optimal happiness is more common. Stoicism is a similar condition, as it reflects a certain consilience with life. Being always unhappy grinds you down, taking energy and even good health. Remarkably, once optimal happiness is accepted, it paradoxically increases happiness. Rich or poor, successful or not, free or oppressed, most folks fit here – like me. When learning a concept, it is wise to start small and build knowledge. So, beginning with these five states, you may uncover other states, better suited to yourself. For example, you could claim spiritual or social happiness are states.  Where do you fit? Socrates wisely instructed us to “Know Thyself.”

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Accepting Fake Information

Every day, we are all bombarded with information, especially on news channels.  One group claims it's false; another calls it the truth. How can we know when to accept it or alternatively how can we know it's false? There are several factors which influence acceptance of fake or false information. Here are the big four.  Some just don’t have the knowledge to discern fact/truth from fiction/fact/false*. Some fake information is cleverly disguised and simply appears to be correct. Some fake information is accepted because the person wants to believe it. Some fake information is accepted because there is no other information to the contrary. However, the acceptance of  information  of any kind become a kind of  truth , and this is a well studied topic. In the link below is an essay on “The Truth About Truth.” This shows simply that what is your point of view, different types of information are generally accepted, fake or not.   https://www.linkedin.com/posts/g-donald-allen-420b03

Your Brain Within Your Brain

  Your Bicameral Brain by Don Allen Have you ever gone to another room to get something, but when you got there you forgot what you were after? Have you ever experienced a flash of insight, but when you went to look it up online, you couldn’t even remember the keyword? You think you forgot it completely. How can it happen so fast? You worry your memory is failing. Are you merely absent-minded? You try to be amused. But maybe you didn’t forget.   Just maybe that flash of insight, clear and present for an instant, was never given in the verbal form, but another type of intelligence you possess, that you use, and that communicates only to you. We are trained to live in a verbal world, where words matter most. Aside from emotions, we are unable to conjure up other, nonverbal, forms of intelligence we primitively, pre-verbally, possess but don’t know how to use. Alas, we live in a world of words, stewing in the alphabet, sleeping under pages of paragraphs, almost ignoring one of

Is Artificial Intelligence Conscious?

  Is Artificial Intelligence Conscious? I truly like the study of consciousness, though it is safe to say no one really knows what it is. Some philosophers has avoided the problem by claiming consciousness simply doesn’t exist. It's the ultimate escape clause. However, the "therefore, it does not exist" argument also applies to "truth", "God", and even "reality" all quite beyond a consensus description for at least three millennia. For each issue or problem defying description or understanding, simply escape the problem by claiming it doesn’t exist. Problem solved or problem avoided? Alternately, as Daniel Dennett explains consciousness as an account of the various calculations occurring in the brain at close to the same time. However, he goes on to say that consciousness is so insignificant, especially compared to our exalted notions of it, that it might as well not exist [1] . Oh, well. Getting back to consciousness, most of us have view