The 1776 US Declaration of Independence is a great document, not only because of its historical role, but also because of its very beginning words that proclaim inalienable human rights, "which include life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." Pay attention, however, to a tricky legal subtlety - this is not about happiness, but precisely the pursuit of it. Sometimes I imagine the author of these lines, Thomas Jefferson, sitting in his office one late June evenings. He dips his pen in ink and, having entered life and freedom on the list, raises his hand for the third time, wanting to empower people with the right to happiness, but then his pen flinches, and this legal philosopher resorts to a more careful, more accurate formulation. In her, in this "pursuit of happiness", lies a wise but sad observation of human life,where happiness is usually not a present reality, but either a potentially awaiting object of striving in the future, or something that was supposedly available to us in the past (but this is in fact the same product of imagination as future happiness). The amazing thing is that even Americans, the most enthusiastic optimists in one of the most optimistic eras of history, the Enlightenment, even they did not dare to go so far as to call it right.even they did not dare to go so far as to call it a right.even they did not dare to go so far as to call it a right.
This lovely clarification, rightly pointing to the problematic nature of happiness, is at the same time based on the prevailing illusory notion that happiness must be obtained, that it is a kind of acquisition, a positive increment obtained from outside. In a previous letter, I tried to show that achieving the desired, contrary to the general belief, does not make us happy and does not noticeably change our well-being in itself. Having carefully and honestly analyzed our own past, we inevitably notice that our subjective experience of the most pleasant periods of our own existence differed very little from our everyday worldview. Our brains and our imaginations have evolved in such a way that in order to more effectively motivate, we associate the possession of what we want with a hundredfold greater feelings of satisfaction and happiness.than it can actually give us. If we could unbiasedly imagine a change in our state after the implementation of this or that goal or a group of goals, we would find that this change is so vanishingly small (and is mainly associated with the same self-deception, self-programming for a long-awaited joy), what to do for this any effort is completely pointless.
That is why nature prevents us from seeing the harsh truth - this has a bad effect on the instincts of reproduction and domination, in a word, it lowers the morale and labor discipline of soldiers on the evolutionary front. To effectively implement both natural and socio-cultural algorithms, we do not need to be happy, it is even harmful and undesirable, which is why society and nature are equally opposed to our well-being. However, not only do we not know how to analyze our own and other people's life stories and draw conclusions from them, but for the same biosocial reasons, we quickly forget each new disappointment and go forward to new heights with a soul not burdened with knowledge. On this path, we are supported by popular culture and propaganda - almost all their products contain a spell: forward, achieve, never give up and never think,is it necessary at all.
But if not finding what we want makes us happy, then we are also unhappy not because of the lack of what we want, but because of our own suffering about its absence, because in the article "Suffering has only one reason?" I called it existential dissonance. He tries to clamp every moment of the present in the grip of the future and the past. We either regret that things are not as good as they were in the imaginary past, or we suffer that things are still not as good as they might be in the imaginary future. We constantly compare what is with our fantasies of how it should be, while cruelly deceiving ourselves about the euphoria awaiting us to fulfill our dreams. Pelevin illustrates this beautifully in the following words (Interview 2005):
Human consciousness is like the sky, which all our life is covered with a thick layer of cirrus clouds of suffering - they are our everyday background from existential dissonance, suffering is everlasting, habitual, normal, and therefore tolerable. From time to time, thunderclouds appear on it and lightning strikes - such are the periods of intense grief and despair. From time to time between the clouds the sun's rays and blue break through - these are moments of happiness and joy. What this allegory says is that finding happiness does not require any achievements and acquisitions, it, on the contrary, requires a subtraction operation. As soon as the clouds disappear, the sky will shine with its inherent deep and joyful blue. It is worth stopping to muddy the water in the vessel, and it, having settled, will be purified and will be able to let in the light, the light that does not need to be sought, since it is always there,he just does not need to interfere. This task is not at all as titanic as it might seem if we take into account that the constant cloudiness of our inner climate is generated by the mind from emptiness, and although this happens with the same automatism as breathing, we are able to interrupt the first process by an effort of will, and second. But if we hardly manage without breathing, then purposeful and conscious lowering of the power of the generator of suffering soldered into our brain by nature and culture will definitely benefit us. But if we hardly manage without breathing, then purposeful and conscious lowering of the power of the generator of suffering soldered into our brain by nature and culture will definitely benefit us. But if we hardly manage without breathing, then purposeful and conscious lowering of the power of the generator of suffering soldered into our brain by nature and culture will definitely benefit us.
If you go in search of happy people, then you should look for them more in monasteries than in expensive mansions, high posts or academies of sciences. As Bertrand Russell wrote, "from a conversation with a pundit, every time I draw the conclusion that happiness is not given to us, but when I talk with a gardener, I am convinced of the opposite." Gardeners and monks, especially Buddhist ones, are usually happier than their more “successful” brothers and sisters, but not at all because they have a lot of joys and live vibrant, fulfilling lives. Quite the opposite, with less, they can get more. Their inner palate is cleaner, and, as we now know, contrary to false evidence, it is not the operation of addition, but the operation of subtraction that is mainly responsible for our well-being.
Yielding to the temptation of vulgar mathematical metaphors, eighty percent of happiness is freedom from suffering generated by existential dissonance, therefore it must not be achieved, first of all, it must not be prevented from manifesting itself. As for the remaining 20%, they are made up of hundreds of small and great joys, and there are many individual differences, but they are kept on two pillars of genuine human existence - on creativity and love. Both give life meaningfulness and partially overcome our loneliness, without which our inner sky, no matter how pure from suffering, often seems empty and cold.
Promotional video:
© Oleg Tsendrovsky