CLARIFICATION OF WHAT IS "OF VALUE"
AND WHAT IT TAKES TO "SERVE ENOUGH"
This is an answer to an email, and proceeds in reverse chronological order with the first email at the bottom.
_____________________________________________________
Good. This is all for "distinguishing" what really is an appropriate way to live in life and specifically, right now, how much is necessary for a human to contribute who wants to be happy (about being at a higher level). While we are not comparing ourselves to others as a put down to them, we must compare in order to see what level we'll probably be at so we can see if that level is one to be unhappy about or not.
The essential question is "what is the appropriate level to contribute at in order to get to where I want to go?" Our criteria can't be "as much as possible", for there is no end or reachable goal there - we would always be short of it! And my destination can't be "as high as possible and everything short of that is not ok and I shall punish myself (with worry, anxiety) so that I am spurred on to do more." See Living The Punitive Way.
Buddha made the decision, after trying all extremes of purity, etc., that the best way to live would be the Middle Way. And like Goldilocks you get to make the decision of "what is just right", and note that it is never at the extreme nor impossible.
Life is composed of tradeoffs (and limits) - we cannot have everything we want, abilitywise, resourceswise, timewise. Or heavenly positionwise.
Our job is to determine (through learning so that we can make distinctions) what a good balance is. The sign of imbalance comes from the system that God set up called "a human being", where it emits "bad feelings" to tell us we went too far, or are not going far enough in other cases. The anxiety in the morning about "am I doing enough? or will I be stuck at a lower level of heaven" is a sure sign that there is at the very least a lack of clarity. When we clear up the question of what is reasonable and doable and the level we can reasonably reach, then we will not have the anxiety. All will be ok and you'll simply get to the level you get to - and that, I am sure, will be a pretty darned good level (but hopefully you'll wave down to me far, far below, where I am still in a pretty happy place).
The best human beings can do is determine "what is of value" and then to distinguish among what is "of value" as to which is of higher value - and then, of course, spend the time on what is of higher value. Then we'll simply get to the best level we could get to - and that will be more than ok!
BUT, WHAT OF THE "IDLE" STUFF?
The question came up of whether enjoyment is ok and whether the time should be devoted exclusively to service with no personal "indulgences" or idle time.
The peculiar thing is that things like "idle time" where we are gearing down our brain so that it can function more capably for a good cause later that is of relatively high value. ...to a certain level. The periods of "idle time" to better enable a "so that" - something which is done in order to get something of actual value - so those "so that"s have value in that they enable value to occur as a result of them
Everything has a diminishing value as we do more of it. Idle time that is "too much" or "more than is needed" is in that case of low value. Otherwise, it can be high, or very high, value when needed to rebalance one's "homeostatic" balance so one can function well.
Likewise, getting pleasure is of value to a point (and as long as it doesn't result in later harm), but is of lower and lower value after that point as we do more and more of it. It is of "diminishing value". As it gets to a lower value for the next item in that area, it may not be worth doing any more IF there is something else of good value that also makes ourselves feel good about ourselves or which will produce more value over time than the next pleasure action.)
Some people can't even see the value of sleep, rest, naps, rejuvenation, or relaxation in its various forms. They simply do not understand their effects on our ability to function well, so they give up on doing them, like many do with items that improve their productive capability, in favor of producing more "widgets" of some sort (money, "contribution", some "work product") which are of lower value compared to the benefit of productive capability in one's life. The smart person sees the tradeoffs and seeks the optimum balance, trading off momentary loss of production for creating the greater production capability that will cause an even greater increase in production, replacing all the lost production and more.
Contributing to others, although it seems to be the opposite of the "idleness" activities, is not dissimilar in that it gives us happiness (wired in) as a byproduct, and is worthwhile doing if its value is more than alternatives. But, at some point, its extra (marginal) value will diminish, like all things positive, to where we reach a point where we've done enough and/or it has less value to us. If we continue to contribute beyond a rational tradeoff point and do it to the detriment of our health and emotional well-being that is, of course, obviously going too far - and it is a foolish, non-thinking "choice".
In order to make the right decision, we have to stop and think "what is the long term value of my alternatives and which shall I now pick (that is of the highest value of the alternatives)? And we must be smart enough (or wise enough, actually) to evaluate the extra value enabled by those things that increase our functionality and productive capacity.
When we fail to stop and engage our higher brain for our choices (and when we fail to decide what the value is of the alternatives), we get much, much less out of life - and can even go to the point of suffering from our bad (often rote) choices, where we fail to consider the trade-offs we must make in life, as a limited human being with limited time, etc.
And we must balance off "happiness now" with "happiness in the after life", so that overall we are in a state of enduring, unconditional happiness. But no human being can correctly estimate those and must therefore operate using the systems given to us at birth.
Since we cannot gauge the future accurately, we must use the tools we have that help us to have at each moment the right balance (right balance is always in terms of value per amount of time, not in terms of "quantity" unadjusted for value). This is indicated by our signal system that tells us we are in balance, calm, not anxious, feeling confident - if those are not in balance, then our priority is always to put them back in balance as soon as possible - just keep balancing those and you'll be as far along as you can be - and somewhere pretty good on the spectrum of levels of heaven.
SO, THE PROCESS IS...
1. Decide what is of value (so you'll have the key criterion for a choice)
2. Think it out, adjusting the estimate of the value (depending on the current diminished value and also recalibrating any value estimates based on how they made you "feel" (your primitive mind feedback system) and the value over the long term.
3. Then we pick the item of the highest value to do.
4. We always "check in" with our "feelings" to see if it feels right (and adjust as needed).
5. Look at the results of our choice and then adjust what is needed to get better results if need be.
We cannot be perfect in our choices - and it is a human fallacy to suffer over not being perfect, of leaving something on the table. In caveman days, not having enough capability or safety could kill you - so the mind would give you a big jolt of chemicals to get you to fix the dire potential danger. But nowadays we have no such dire shortages, so we don't need to get more - we are already safe. If we don't realize this, then we continue to look at things from the "not enough" viewpoint, when we have only just fallen short of our expectations - and it is held as if it were a real danger or a loss. If we view it as if it were a loss, we, naturally, feel a sense of loss (as if we had the higher state and then lost it, even though we never actually did!) But that "bad feeling" (of a sense of loss) has zero validity in reality. (When we learn this, we become "free" and we experience life without the interfering faux fears! And life is, seeming magically, much, much more joyful!)
The only logical thing is to judge, instead, from the opposite viewing point - not "what I don't have that I should have", but "what do I have and is that something I appreciate and am grateful for?" Ask "is it enough?", is it even more than "enough"?
That is why much of our work, especially initially, is to make clear "what is there", what exists, and to blow out the false fears and the "not enoughs" and doubts. We even "certaintize" more of life and build a new life based on guaranteed strong pillars.
_____________
MUST I SUFFER OR JUST OPERATE OFF OF WHAT IS OF VALUE?
The great unsettled question is how to reconcile the viewpoint of
1. "God requires all of me for His purposes and I must suffer accordingly, or my happiness is not important and it is selfish" and
2. "God set up a system of signals to tell me within myself what is of more value to me" and "man is that he might know joy.
On the latter, some religious people have gotten the idea that they are the exception, that the joy thing does not apply to them and it is, somehow, only the joy of others that matters. (See the "not being selfish" section below
With regard to viewpoint #2, if we observe "what is so" in that arena, our own emotional well-being appears to have many times the value of anything out there as the system gives out the strongest signals and impulses to drive us back to emotional well-being or to attract us to it, but only after our "survival" factors are taken care of.
We are, of course, evolved for the passing on of our genes, meaning we must survive to pass on the genes, so the body is set up to have those impulses be the strongest. Emotional well-being has evolved to support that. (Note, however, that some of those impulses need to be taken as "just impulses" that we notice and think about to see if they will truly serve us. The impulse to do all we can to avoid REAL danger is unquestionable, but the "faux fears" that we make up need to be dealt with and disappeared as being illegitimate, for they are the source of almost all our unhappiness.
DETERMINING "RELATIVE VALUE"
It isn't hard, in my opinion, to determine the ranking order by value (i.e. survival is above emotional well-being or a kiss).
The difficulty lies in determining "relative value" of each part of life, so that we can make choices where it is possible to make choices. So, we just have to estimate and get a "feel" for relative value - i.e., how much more value does one area have compared to another.
WHICH IS #1?
It is not difficult to see what is of number one value - spiritual/emotional well-being and physical well-being.
Survival (in some form) is #1 (to prolong the human experience even if survival of spirit will occur in heaven). The eternal life is ranked even higher, for if we die we are still ok, but God made the system while we are on earth such that we would cherish life itself. So survival would be given 100,000+ units of value. Without it, there is no life ball game at all.
A person's emotional well-being is next, as that is the person that you would most want benefit for - yes, yourself.
You are the core of your world and you live in "your world", judging all things in terms of that world far above anything else. The earth world is of course outside of your world, with you as teeny, tiny grain of sand relatively.
I would give emotional well-being a value of 10,000 units, as it is essential to have a well operating human being who is capable of generating what is of value. This is part of the "productive capability" of a human being, for without it we would not have the incentive and the balance to function well in producing life-giving results. It is vital and essential to a good life. (Note the value given to it by Stephen Covey).
Physical well-being is a supporter of emotional well-being (as it feels good and makes one more capable). I propose that without physical well-being it is difficult to have the best emotional well-being. I give it, therefore, a value of 5,000 units at the core level, with a diminishing value as we do more of it. In other words, 30 minutes walking a day will give alot of health benefits and feeling good for the day, but adding another 5 minutes will add much less value. Of course, some level of physical capability is vital to keeping us alive, so the vital parts of the physical survival are #1, while the non vital parts are subordinate to emotional well-being and just living a better life.
THE CLEAR #2 AND #3
What is the next most important and valuable to us in terms of our living our life. Of course, that, too, is obvious and clear: Contributing to those nearest and dearest (Spouse 1000 units, family members less)
NEXT, A LITTLE FUZZY...
Surely, assuring that there is enough money for survival and reasonable well-being is vital, at close to the #1 area, as it benefits that area and #2 and #3. So, it is a vital part, up to a point of #1.
But above a certain basic level, where we talk about improving our lot it might be placed at #4 or #5 (sometimes doing good in one's very close community or church takes precedence over extra wealth or income to a comfortable level).
If we get most of the extra money we need that will benefit us such that we can live at a good solid amount of financial well-being, then earning more money is less valuable, so that what becomes more valuable is the last major area of value. The relative value position passes over to being below that of contributing to others - which is why so many people get rich and then switch horses over to contributing to others. One of the greatest examples is Bill Gates.
In my case, extra money earned or accumulated for myself became valueless, so my only game now is contribution, after taking care of the higher value areas, of course. We'll see how effective I will be at this, but at least I know I will (and have) contributed some value to some individuals, per their feedback to me and their results in life
CONTRIBUTING AND ITS RELATIVE VALUE
The feeling of contributing to others is a good feeling. It has some value to us.
But some people get stuck on the idea that contributing is the end all and be all of life. That, however, is not valid thinking.
This area, as with all areas, if we pay attention and don't intellectualize, diminishes in value and effect on us as we do more of it. Indeed, it is not an essential need, but a "bonus" in happiness - it is derived from the fact that evolution rewards cooperation, as a key factor in surviving better.
Clearly it is in our best interest as a human tribe to encourage contribution so that we are all better off.
So, let's give cooperation and its cousin, contribution, 10 value units, diminishing to zero as we do more of it with diminishing extra value to us. (Zero occurs if it pushes out other things of equal or more value).
When a person gets stuck in a non-thinking mode and just keeps pushing the "reward" (of value) button over and over after the reward is diminished is unwisely wasting one's life, following the path of a fool, fooled by rigid and unadjusted thinking (or non-thinking!). A person must, to live a good life, keep his eye on the value of any one area or action as it diminishes from doing more of it, to the point where something else would be of more value.
Relatively, of course, benefiting a stranger would certainly have less value than the same benefit to someone near and dear to you.
So that is why, after your own well-being, it is family first and then on down the line, from friends, local community (church, etc.) on down to strangers further and further away.
Interestingly, the value diminishes geometrically, not in a straight line, as you go out from the center of the circle of importance (highest value), so that twice the distance away from you is 1/4th of the importance of someone close to you and thrice the distance is 1/9 th of the importance. You don't have to go very far out to hit the point where contributing "out there" has 1/100th of the importance of contributing to your spouse or family!
A stranger on the other side of the world is somewhere like far less than 1/1000th of the relative importance. However, we often add a "meaning" to contributing in and of itself in general, so that we feel good about contributing, period, even where there is otherwise low value to us and a zero effect on us. But, then, it would still be logical to contribute first and almost exclusively to those whom are closer. (However, although it may seem disloyal, a life saved in the U.S. has no more value to me than one saved anywhere else in the world - and I also believe that each dollar contributes more net gain to the very poor in the undeveloped world.)
At virtually no time is the meaning of contribution "out there" even near the meaning of contributing to oneself (a million times more important). But once I have taken enough care of myself and of those near and dear to me, I will then need little else and I can start doing the lower value (but of world value) contribution to others. But not until then. Be clear about that. Not UNTIL then. We often jump into something prematurely, before we've taken care of all that is more important.
When I have contributed all that is of good value to those who are most valued, then, and only then, should I go into contributing to others. That is not "politically correct" or socially sanctioned, but look at this from a value mindset and you'll see the point, hopefully. (If I have not made this point clearly enough, write to me.)
To determine the value of contributing to another person, we must determine the value of the difference we make in the other person's life - if it is an "oh, that's nice" or "I feel better for the moment" that might be a unit value of less that 1/10th of a unit impact on their life. To determine in my world the value of my contribution to a relative stranger, I would multiply the 1/10th times the distance multiplier of say 1/1000th. The value of the action would be 1/10000th of a unit. Surely we can find something of greater value to do in our life!!!!
(For example, running a project to help clean up a park that people get a little effect from, say a 1/1000 th unit in their lives of 1/10000 of importance with no lasting value times 10,000 people would still only have a net value to me of 1/1000th unit. (Do the math, as above.) A 1000 of those projects could not make up for even a little I could do for someone very close to me. Such remote projects relative to value for me are no more forwarding almost than walking on a treadmill to a distant place. And the problem with doing the project naively thinking it is a gain is that it takes more value away from using the same time (or even a small fraction of it) to benefit oneself or one's loved ones. It is no contest, but some cannot see the enormous discrepancy.)
IT'S ALWAYS "AT THE MARGIN" - THE VALUE OF THE NEXT ACTION
Where we get confused is "at the margin" of all that we do. We fail to see things in perspective and we fail to differentiate. Doing any one particular type of action will produce different benefits at different times (all things diminish in impact as they are done more often in any set period of time) and also in different circumstances.
If we are aware and thinking, we would always value our next action in that one area and choose it only if its value is still above the value of our highest value alternative. If its value is lower, we would choose the higher value alternative. (Duh!)
So, any one action must not be held as always having the same value, as its value changes based on quantity. And in some cases there are more higher value items available to compare it to, so the choice may even change if the value of the action itself did not change.
SACRIFICE
When the idea of sacrifice is suggested as something one "should do", it should not be considered as an absolute or suggested as being unlimited in how far to go. It also should be evaluated relative to other alternatives of what to do.
Indeed, sacrifice is what we do all the time.
We give up having one thing in favor of having another thing of value.
We don't "do" sacrifice in order to stimulate ourselves, like the practice of "cutting" our skin just to feel something. Sacrifice in and of itself for its own sake is surely nonsense! Sacrifice is always for the purpose of upgrading and being better off, never toward "suffering" overall (net over time).
"Right" sacrifice is not at all painful, because we know that we are better off because of it!
In fact, a human being need not suffer at all. Yes, we will have pain as a corrective signal that something is wrong, but we needn't add more emotional pain to it - that is like stabbing our wounds and it makes no sense.
We add suffering by creating false fears of "not enough" or of "faux dangers" that we think are real. Once we learn more deeply about this, we will see the nonsense that we have inflicted upon ourselves - so one of our jobs is to stop this nonsense by learning how things in the emotional area work and "how to work them" so that we can stop the nonsense, or, put another way, stop the insanity! (as Susan Powter was famous for saying).
NOT BEING "SELFISH"
And the idea of "not being selfish" is also misconscrewed. We all must, as humans, attempt to act in our own self interest. It would be foolish to act against our self interest, to make ourselves worse off!
"Selfish" occurs on a spectrum, and like many other things it is only "bad" (harmful) it is at the foolish extreme - all the other so called "selfish" things are ok and beneficial, in fact, to one's self interest above the interests of others.
What "inappropriate selfishness" (the extreme) refers to is foolishly and harmfully indulging yourself when doing something against your best self interest or instead of doing something better for yourself.
And what it gets confused with is contributing/giving to others or not.
It is fine, as we've noted above, to do what has value to us from contributing to people, as long as that is our best value choice in the moment. It, again, is a matter of balance, toward a higher total value!.
(People will dogmatically defend to the extreme the generality of "you shouldn't be selfish, it's not nice", but they are stuck on a concept and on narrowly defining it. Despite their "stuck" view, what is true always is that all things must be valued relative to each other. We cannot live in a one dimensional, rigid mental world, as all things in the real world have tradeoffs - and we are ALWAYS, to the best of our ability, seeking to do what is in our self interest, which may be avoiding doing some things called selfish not because of the label but because of the actual relative value of doing the thing!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
WHAT MIGHT THE RELATIVE VALUES BE IN LIFE?
The church relative values:
1. Our physical and spiritual selves (emotional well-being is a sign of spiritual balance.)
2. Spouse
3. Children
4. Church callings
5. Professional life or training
6. Civic responsibilities
Surely, contributing in the 4th or 6th layer out at the expense of #1, #2, and/or #3 is a very, very poor choice. But it is one we get stuck in, either through habit or lack of thinking of what is of most value at the time of what we could do.
MAKE A CHOICE AND BE CLEAR ABOUT THE RELATIVE VALUE!
As already pointed out, one must do his/her homework on what is of real value in this world AND then, for sure, one must use his head (higher brain) to think and decide rationally.
Do these well and you will have an incredible life!
________________________________________________________
On Oct 27, 2015, at 9:02 AM, reply:
Wow ~ intelligent and perceptive way to assess my activities. Yes, I now realize that my long term spiritual goals are definitely in the "vague soup" area. I'm really not trying to compete with others ~ only I guess with myself. I don't see that my activities make me "better" than . . . I'm just trying to "live the gospel" the best I can for myself.
The issue here really is "What is Living the Gospel?" I am surrounded by lessons, talks, and conversations about how important it is to "be there for others, to listen to the Spirit guide our actions, to serve others, etc."
That is my paradigm and has been for 50 years. It is a core belief. We are taught to consecrate our lives to the building up of the kingdom of God on this earth. I guess I'm somewhat "guessing" (trying to figure out) what that means for me and how I live each day.
I like the activity I will now do about examining how other church members "live the gospel", what they do, what they are like.
THE ORIGINAL IN THIS SERIES
From an earlier email.
Subject: The question of "high enough" contribution
A few thoughts:
How many people do you know who are at your level of contribution in this world?
What % are they of the people you know?
Aren't you more likely to know people who are at the higher levels of the
people on this earth, in terms of contribution? [Probably you
associate with the top 5% or fewer in the world. If you answered to the first
question 1%, then you'd multiply 1% times 5%, and you'd be in the top 0.05% of
the world or in the top 5 of 10,000 people.]
Are the people in your ward high enough level for you to be happy to be with in the future?
What % of those people in the ward would be ok to be with in heaven?
Who, specifically, by name, is at a higher spiritual level than you in the ward. Name them and describe them. What do you need to change to be at their level? Are they at a high enough level that you would be happy with that place in heaven? Would it
be ok to be even close to their level in heaven?
Are you likely to be in the top 3 of kingdoms (I forgot what you call them)? If you're in the top which of the 3 levels in that are you very likely at least to be in?
If the afterlife will be happier than here for everyone who is not in the bad souls area, wouldn't you be happy enough?
Since it must be true, unless you can
prove otherwise, that the reason you want to be at a higher level of heaven is
because you want to be happier, why is "very high" not ok and why must you be at
the highest level or some undefined level that is right there with God?
Wouldn't you be more than happy enough even if you were just in the top
level of the top kingdom?
(If you wouldn't be, why are you so arrogant and
prideful and thus undeserving of being in heaven because of your selfish greed
and not accepting good enough?)
So, why, again, are you chasing perfection in your contribution to the world?
Isn't there a point at which you would be willing to accept at or above that?
Is God going to be happy seeing you be
unhappy every morning thinking you might not do enough contribution? Isn't it
true that "man is that he might know joy?" - and that surely he wants you to
know joy, which means not making yourself unhappy when there is nothing to gain
from the unhappiness gap and unreasonable expectations.
Hmmm...just wondering.
Oh, and it eternal progression is infinite, if you are one rung
higher on the huge ladder, isn't that just a teeny, weeny, tiny bit ahead in the
overall perspective?
What would it take for you to accept "high enough", a
"good enough", a "well, that's pretty good?" Is there a specified church level
of contribution that you must be at?
What if you realized that you are pretty
close to as far as you'll go? And if you just did the best that you could do to
get wiser ('cause you only have so many hours and attention units you can invest
in learning)? And you just said, "well, I will for sure take care of myself so
that I am happy and also so that I can contribute more once I've taken care of
myself and my loved one and I simply before I did the next thing asked myself
'is this the most beneficial, productive good I can do in the world, including
for myself?'
Wouldn't that be ok?
What would be ok?
Write the answer out in detail, using some of the above in writing it....
