Somewhere Out There

R.W.Teesdale

30 August 2010

             Throughout the ages, man has been fascinated with the subject of happiness.  For some, it is something to be “pursued,” while others try to “find” contentment, as if it is somewhere on a map.  Foreign correspondent for NPR, Eric Weiner wrote The Geography of Bliss: One Grump’s Search for the Happiest Places in the World, a project which took him around the world, in search of its happiest people and their cultures.  His trip may have yielded him plenty of frequent flyer miles, but he reports only a marginal improvement in his overall happiness level upon his return.  I suspect that the popular myth that happiness can be found some place is nothing more than an advertising ploy perpetuated by the travel industry and tourist bureaus of the world to entice us to come to exotic places, and spend a lot of money.  Although he starts the book with the statement that “happiness is not inside of us, but out there,” by the end of his yearlong journey, he concludes that most of the things that are really important to happiness are not to be found in any particular geographic location, but in the relationship one has with family and friends, and in the practice of virtues such as trust, and gratitude.  I agree with his conclusion that happiness involves more of a change in attitude than a change in location.

            In a fascinating series of videos, The Biology of Perception, cellular biologist, Bruce Lipton explains that for years, the science of biology taught that genes, or DNA, controlled not only our physical characteristics, but our inclinations toward anxiety, aggression or happiness.  Since we inherit our genetic makeup from our parents, there would seem to be little that we could do about our predisposition towards certain behaviors and diseases.  In fact, in The How of Happiness, Sonja Lyubomirsky suggests that up to 50% of our happiness level is hereditary (53). Now, however, recent research has revealed the error in that assumption.  Without getting too technical here, basically, the story is that cells simply react to environmental stressors and stimuli in one of two modes – either growth or protection.  In other words, it is not a pre-determined pattern of heredity that determines cellular characteristics, but reaction to the environment.  In all of nature, living things have a fractal design – a repeating pattern in which every cell is a microcosm of the larger whole organism.  So, if what is true for the cell is also true for the whole organism, we could conclude that we too are the product of our environment.  This would lead one to believe that by changing one’s environment, one could change the person.  There is one factor that complicates this picture, however, and that is perception. We react not to our environment, but to what we perceive our environment to be, and what we perceive it to be is not necessarily what our environment actually is.

            Cells have a very simple mechanism of receptors and effectors, which by changing the shapes of proteins within the cell, react to various stimuli.   We humans have a similar, but far more complicated system of receptors – eyes, ears, nose, and skin – that sends information to our brain, which reacts and adapts to its environment as well.  As the information is passing through our brains, however, it picks up additional information stored in the brain about the subject.  For example if we put our hand close to a hot element of a stove, we get the sensation of the heat from our fingers, but we also get beliefs about the dangers of hot objects and stored patterns for survival behavior from past experience that cause us to pull back our hand and not burn ourselves.  It is a combination of direct reaction and also our fear that causes our body to move.  Cells react in the same way if there is an actual danger or if there is only a fear of danger.  So, it comes down to our perception of the environment that causes the change, and not just the environment itself.  What I’m saying here is that changing one’s environment may not change the person, but changing his attitude about his environment will.  Therefore, a sad person will be a sad person in either an awful place or a paradise.  If you think that life sucks, it will suck for you wherever you go.  Conversely, if you believe life is good, you can be happy in most any livable environment.

             So, unless you enjoy the glamour of travel, dragging luggage around airports, buses, hotels, eating restaurant food, and taking a lot of pictures of scenery, you could save yourself the trip, if it is happiness you’re after.  It’s not somewhere “out there,” but somewhere “in here.”  If life is a journey, we agree with author Henry Miller, that “one’s destination is never a place, but a new way of seeing things.”        

                                                            Works Cited

Lyubomirsky, Sonja. The How of Happiness: A New Approach to Getting the Life You Want.  New York: Penguin 2007. Print.

 Weiner, Eric. The Geography of Bliss: One Grump’s Search for the    Happiest  Places in the World. New York: Twelve 2008. Print.   

Logos-blogos

R.W.Teesdale 

 “In the beginning was the word . . .” St. John 1:1

      The Greek “logos” is the word John uses, which means, according to Heraclitus (535-475 B.C.) “the principle of Order and Knowledge in the Universe.”  The Sophist philosophers of Greece used the term to mean “discourse,” while the Stoics later defined it as the “divine animating principle of the Universe.” 

       Sophist and educator, Protagoras, maintained that he could teach his students to be “good citizens,” (hence, our word, “sophisticated”), while Socrates, on the other hand, argued that virtue cannot be taught.  Plato gives an account of this famous argument in Protagoras.  Socrates was generally skeptical about sophists who traveled around the country, teaching for money; warning his student, Hippocrates, that they are dangerous because their persuasive words “go straight to the soul,” and could lead to its corruption.  In Plato’s story, Socrates makes a distinction between knowledge and wisdom, saying that although knowledge can be taught, wisdom cannot.  Protagoras comes back with the question of why, if that were true, do parents spend so much time trying to teach their children virtues, and why do we go to school, or church, and why do we try to rehabilitate criminals, or send bad kids to correctional institutions if they can’t learn virtues?  Socrates points out that if virtue could be handed down or imparted, then why are the children of virtuous men not always virtuous themselves?  Protagoras explains that it is probably because the parent did not teach the child his virtues properly.  For example, a flute player’s son may not necessarily know how to play the flute, even though his father is a virtuoso, unless the father takes the time to teach him what he knows.  As so often happens in philosophical discussions, the issue between Protagoras and Socrates is not resolved, and continues on through the ages, as every new generation adds their insights to the discussion, even to this day.  So if philosophy’s goal is wisdom, and wisdom cannot be taught, what is the purpose of a course in philosophy?

        In The Experience of Philosophy, authors David Kolak and Raymond Martin define philosophy as the art of questioning everything (1).  Philosophers believe there is a danger in the uncritical acceptance of beliefs.  That danger is as relevant today in the post-modern world, as it was in the time of Plato.  If you are like me, you get your information from a variety of sources: Broadcast News, Cable News, Public Radio, and the Internet.  Only by synthesizing the stories from all these sources can one arrive at some consensus and figure out what is really happening. It seems that each individual source has its own interpretation of events, and unless you have actually experienced a thing, and have first-hand knowledge, you rely on someone else’s interpretation of events, which cannot help but be biased in some way by their belief systems.  Even your own experience, although you may consider it factual, is viewed through the filter of your own beliefs.  This is why twenty people viewing the same event have twenty different versions of the tale.  So it is important always to consider the source, what their motivations might be, who financially supports them and what their agendas are, and in what way they may benefit from your belief that what they say is true.

     Some say beliefs hold the keys to your life.  Beliefs must change before anything else changes.  This is not the same as simply thinking or saying something is so, and magically it becomes a reality.  How many diets and New Year’s resolutions have you made that didn’t stick?  You may agree with an idea intellectually, but that does not change your beliefs.  Change requires something more than that.  The knowledge you gain from someone else needs to be tried on to see how it fits you – like a pair of pants.  If you try it on, and it fits for you – agrees with other things you know to be true – you may agree with it; and in practicing it, and experiencing it, you may eventually believe it.  Only when that happens does your world change to reflect that new belief.  Now there is good news and bad news about belief.  The bad news is that, as children, most of our beliefs are handed down to us from parents or authority. We have no critical thinking skills; we just automatically assume that what is told to us is the gospel truth.  As adults, we need to learn to evaluate information, rather than just uncritically absorb it.  The good news is that beliefs can be changed ( Riuz 7).  There is an interesting series of videos by Rob Williams on a technique developed to do just that.

      Philosophy teaches us how to question, think critically, and form our own world view. Kolak and Martin say, that although knowledge and beliefs can be handed down, wisdom cannot be (1).  As Canadian songwriter, Burton Cummings, put it, “Don’t give me no hand-me-down world.”  Wisdom comes from self-discovery – each one of us is on his/her own path of self-awareness, and must individually define what is true.  This is why philosophy is important for everyone, and should be high on a list of priorities for any educational curriculum.

      I hope you will join me here in conversations on a variety of subjects, from the classic discussions of Knowledge, Truth, God, Reality, Ethics, and Freedom, to issues of Aging in the Post-Modern World, Childhood Obesity in America, and other contemporary topics.  Please feel free to comment on the subjects being discussed.  I only ask that the tone of the conversation remains reader-friendly and accessible, using plain language, to keep the conversation real, relevant, lively, and interesting for general audiences.  My intent is to learn by discourse, as did the ancient Greeks.  Although I don’t pretend to know everything, I intend to question everything.

                                                                  Works Cited

Kolak, Daniel and Raymond Martin, eds. The Experience Philosophy.6^thed.            New York: Oxford 2006. Print.

 Riuz, Don Miguel. The Four Agreements: A Practical Guide to Personal Freedom. San Rafael: Amber-Allen. 1997. Print.