The Truth of Happiness

Illusions 

This above all, to thine own self be true.

William Shakespeare

This book appears to be light reading. The title seems uncomplicated, the book cover is simple and its size makes it a quick read. But that’s all a disguise. The topic is serious and life changing. It’s actually the single most important subject that affects our every thought and action. That said, there’s nothing I share that is deep profound philosophical blather. Though philosophers like Albert Camus attempt to address the meaning of life without a deity and all religions address the meaning of life with a deity, my intent is an experiential exercise rather than citing philosophical or religious prose. Essentially, everything in this book is about what we experience every day and indeed, we are all experts in. Something so common and intimate to us as our existence and its meaning should start with us. To that end, if you disagree with something, know that it is my opinion of what I believe is a shared experience.

Indeed, that is the crux of it. We share common daily, moment to moment experiences, despite our age, sex, ethnicity, geographic origin, and even religion—if we believe in one. We not only share them among our own tribes, but more and more in this global world market of ours, we share them with people we least likely would have spoken to, dined with or lived with just fifty to hundred years ago. The diversity of people in our lives today begs us to find commonality, a root source of compassion, if not purpose, that can guide us as we seek the all elusive true happiness and a fulfilling life.

My intent here is not to alienate those rooted in a deep spiritual or religious belief system, nor those who have chosen a more personal belief system. I have therefore kept references to traditional religious and non-religious ideology to a minimum. I apologize if this offends and encourage readers to substitute or meditate on their own beliefs as they ponder these concepts. The ideas presented here are real life experiences that we are all confronted with regardless of what we believe on a personal level.

So, who among us is not an expert in what makes them happy? For most of us a simple form of happiness happens almost every day. The times we smile or even laugh is probably the best part of our day. We even pay money to be entertained just to get a smile or laugh. Standup comedy venues and comedic plays and movies are as popular now as they were a thousand years ago. It would seem we know how to keep happiness in our lives on a regular basis since we are seemingly all experts and we experience it mostly every day. But this would be a wrong assumption. In reality, it is as though happiness happens to us unpredictably and it leaves us the same way. We often identify happiness as the laugh or smile and not the contented state of mind that essentially is happiness. During our quiet moments, when we have the time to evaluate our life, it’s probably not how many times we laughed that matters most to us. More likely, what matters most is if we are really contented. Does our life have meaning or purpose? If we feel there’s purpose in our life we are likely to feel happy. Sadly, there are too many of us that would answer that question with a maybe? Or, simply no. I would argue that if the question of life’s purpose is baffling to us then it’s likely we are living a life of illusion and not cultivating the things we inherently know are the real source of true happiness, the things that make our life have meaning.

Ah, I know, you’re thinking, “Of course I’m happy, of course my life has meaning. I’m married to a beautiful person, I have wonderful children, I live in a terrific house, I have an important job and I’m blessed to make enough to live comfortably––by my standards. What else could anyone ask for. Done. Let me put this book down since it’s obviously not for me but some other poor soul who’s more confused about life.”

There’s no problem with these thoughts; we can feel a deep-seated contentment from family, friends and coworkers. Our jobs can also allow us to leave a mark on society and maybe yours can bring about major lasting changes in whatever you do. Fine. But realize that having family is the easy part. Engaging family, in the way they want, or better, need to be engaged, is the daily challenge. The same is true for friends and coworkers. True happiness comes from interacting with those around us in ways that fulfill them rather than us. This seems counterintuitive but it’s the way we, as people, work. Anything less is an illusion we tell ourselves to conjure up a perception of happiness that is shallow and short-lived. Likewise, the house we choose can make us feel good about ourselves but distract us from the work of building important relationships. The clothes we wear, the apparel we adorn ourselves with, places we go and things we do, can all be traps that tell us one thing, “I’m happy,” but later we feel another. An emptiness that always needs tending to.

A basic premise for a happy life is a fulfilling life, and that a fulfilling life should be attainable by anyone from any station in life. You needn’t be smart or rich or royal. It’s attainable equally in any country, any culture, and any religion, even if you don’t subscribe to one. Essentially, we needn’t fuss over feeling our life isn’t as good as the next guy because they drive a different car, socialize with different people and take trips to different places. In fact, sometimes what other people do may be for all the wrong reasons. Chasing the wrong kind of happiness may yield an illusory happiness, one that is not likely to leave you with a deep contentment. The illusion of a contentment bought and paid for is—an illusion. It is also an illusion to believe that contentment from one act is better than some other act. Happiness attained through sincerity of heart is equal in measure and depth to all other sincere happiness regardless of one’s station in life.

 A few years ago, I eulogized my Uncle Bob by recalling a memory from my early youth when he and I traveled the countryside of Jamaica. I was eight years of age and visiting my parents’ homeland for the first time that I could remember. My uncle packed me up in his VW Bug and we took a road trip to visit my grandparents deep into the heart of rural Jamaica. We drove winding country roads, and I gazed at people in unfamiliar dress doing unfamiliar things. The hills and trees and even the homes, were all different from my New York City. I was mesmerized—nose pressed to the window staring out at a new world. It was my job on this trip to shift the gears as we climbed hills, descended and took turns. I learned to listen to the engine and anticipate my uncle’s approving nod when it was time to throw the stick into the next gear. Again, I was mesmerized. He allowed me to feel so important and I didn’t want our time together to ever end. In my eulogy, I talked about how my uncle touched me that day. I was just a little kid visiting from the Big City, but he not only made it his duty to take me on trips but included me in the task of driving. He was always a kind and generous person. I loved him and never forgot how important he made me feel, even some forty years later. I didn’t smile or laugh on this trip, but I was truly contented. My uncle was Giving me an experience that changed my life. At eight years of age I was mostly a Taker, dependent on others for all my essential needs, but on that day, I was learning how to Give.

 In this book I reflect on my own experiences which I believe we all share. Does my life have meaning, and can I make it have meaning if it’s falling short of that important goal? Can I bottle the concept and pass it on to those I cherish? This book is my attempt to do just that. A tall order, I know. But our shared common experiences are what bonds us as a people and a world community. We are not all that different since we are, indeed, all human.

 I will refer often to two concepts: Giving and Taking. I capitalize them to emphasize their key role in finding the truth of happiness.

What We Believe 

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all [people] are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Thomas Jefferson July 4, 1776

The concept of happiness can seem abstract; where does it come from and why are we all chasing it? Why is it so important in our lives? Clearly, if something doesn’t make us happy, we shun it. If it does, we want more. Oddly enough we don’t really know why it exists and we are not instinctually able to weave it into our lives whenever we want. I’ve pondered whether happiness is so basic a condition of our existence that it is something like the air we breathe. Maybe it is more like a physical phenomenon, always there regardless of whatever else is around us. Indeed, it seems happiness is the one thing that makes us whole. How we view happiness and how we go about getting it, is the real challenge in life, and every culture and religion seem to have their answer.

Some people believe in the providence of nature, some, the providence of a divine entity. To the observant eye, we can’t really tell who is who. In our daily grind of life, we share our space with people from all walks of life: all beliefs, cultures, religions and more. Happiness does not discriminate. It’s not a concept that seeks to exclude you for coming from that part of the world or for believing in that “alien” concept. Happiness is universal. Our desire for it is primal. It transcends our limited stereotypes of who should or shouldn’t be experiencing true happiness. 

On the face of it, this can seem calming. We are all equal in this endeavor. But in reality, we live in our own caves with clustered clans that feel we have the secrets to true happiness. Or so we’d like to think. We sometimes deceive ourselves with this thinking since it helps us feel that we have secrets to life that others should try to emulate. It can be an illusion, like many others, that Take rather than Give to fill an urge for our version of purpose. 

If you believe that atheism is the only real grounded scientifically supportable view of the world, then everyone else seems to be followers of folly. If you believe in Buddha, have your own guru or are a follower of beliefs like Judaism, Christianity or Islam, you undoubtedly believe that yours is the way, the only way. Everyone else must be a lost soul. It’s a clannish outlook on the world and it may help us feel more secure about how we’ve chosen to live in it, but objectively, we are likely living an illusion. Just the judgment that you are right and they are wrong is, simply put, a Take from their existence or reason for being. When our beliefs or religion exclude all other beliefs, we are creating an illusion of supremacy, which can give us false comfort. Our beliefs and religious practices needn’t, however, be exclusive of others to find life’s meaning or purpose. The truth of happiness can undoubtedly be found from all walks of life and acceptance of that truth is the first step towards the Give to others that starts the path to true happiness.

For most of us, we believe what our parents believe. If we are born Jewish, Christian, Muslim or atheist, we are unlikely to find Truth in other beliefs. Ironically, despite their differences and professed primacy, all beliefs have the single goal of believers finding happiness. This happiness may not be explicitly expressed in the tenets or creeds of traditional beliefs, but the outcome of whatever one believes should indeed be a true sincere happiness. Otherwise, how else would one know that they are in sync with their divine source?

Thus, at least in this singular endeavor, all beliefs are equal in accomplishing our primary purpose of finding true happiness. I know, some will say their beliefs are more original or historically accurate or scientifically sound or simply more providential than all the others. They will add that all other beliefs provide a happiness that is less valuable in our current earthly experience or in a future promised experience. While I’ve tried to choose my words here very carefully so as not to offend, I hope the reader can perceive how these distinctions are a distraction from our primary goal to improve everyone’s life in their current situation. Despite what we personally believe, it would be hard for us to deny what we see everyday: people from all walks of life, all sexes, ages, religions and cultures, all experiencing, even if just briefly, moments of true happiness. Indeed, one may choose to weave any cultural or religious belief system into a quest for their life’s purpose. The ends justify the means, as evidenced by countless examples of balanced happy people from all corners of the world. Provided you are sincere, you should succeed.

Unfortunately, the unique trap of our human condition is our willingness to substitute illusory happiness for real happiness, something not seen in lower species. We are challenged in our pursuit of happiness to choose, daily or even hourly, whether our acts will be real or illusory. 

Making daily choices seems burdensome but we are quite capable of learning from repetition, much like we do with everything else in our lives. It requires a meditative focus and self-analysis about how we treat others. Any practice, religious or not, that helps achieve this may find success. The alternative is essentially doing the hamster-run in a cage trying to outdo our peers, allowing outside forces to tell you what you should do to be happy. This outside force will likely tell you the more popular you are or the more money you spend, the happier you’ll be. Of course, this belies the basic premise of happiness, which is: it’s attainable by anyone, anywhere, regardless of one’s station in life.

It should come as no surprise that the word happiness is present in every culture and it’s an experience that crosses every boundary. We essentially all believe something and that something intends us to be successful in life, to be happy. How we achieve it may look different but achieving it is our goal.I believe that no matter our origins, our destiny is the same.

Give or Take 

Whoever pursues justice and kindness will find life and honor.

Proverbs 21:21

By the time we’ve reached our fourth or fifth decade of life we’ve undoubtedly encountered sufficient diversity of people to know from experience that all is not what our eyes and even ears would have us believe. These senses often reflexively try to conform what we see and hear to our cultural norms and stereotypes. The reality, however, is that people are never really who or what they seem.

Throughout my life I’ve come in contact with people from all walks of life. I’m a child of immigrants, I have lived in multiple big cities and worked in places that routinely employ and service the most educated and successful individuals, as well as the least. The nature of my work is such that I spend many hours with colleagues at all hours of the day and night, often under stressful situations. We become like family to each other, knowing much of our personal life choices and experiences, while supporting each other through the difficulties of our day. Our clients come to us at a very vulnerable stage in their life and the veneer of pride is often put aside as they cope with life’s immediate uncertainties. My work is most rewarding for these very reasons, people are mostly just who they are. 

While I have always tried to engage with all equally at work, I have been confounded by the fact that those whom I thought should be happy were sometimes miserable and those that should be struggling just to survive have oftentimes had a positive outlook on life and found pleasure in the smallest of things. These unexpectedly contented people, I’ve noticed, had one consistent quality, they seemed in sync with themselves and their place in the world. It appeared to me that happiness followed from how people act and not from their circumstances. By this I mean that you can tell by people’s actions if they’re in sync with themselves, not by assumptions based on a lack or excess of material wealth or formal education. In essence, we cannot easily change our circumstances, but we can determine how we respond to them. This may seem obvious, but there’s a catch. How people act can be distilled into two very different behaviors. Happy people seem to be more generous in their thoughts, words and deeds. Unhappy people are not. One is a Giver, the other a Taker.

Maybe this doesn’t seem all that foreign to us. We meet people in our lives who we quickly sum up to be fun or friendly and we like spending time with them. They make us laugh, they do exciting things and overall, make us feel more whole. What’s this all about? Why are we almost chemically attracted to them? My instinctual guess is that they are similar to us on a scale of Give and Take. They may even have just a little more Give if we really like them, but essentially, they make us feel comfortable. They are not Taking from us excessively in thoughts, words or deeds. On the other hand, we unfortunately meet people who we instinctively dislike. There’s something about how they carry themselves, how they engage others and how they treat you specifically. If they were Givers on an equal scale to yourself, you would probably enjoy their company. But that’s not who they are. Compared to you, they are Takers. They likely monopolized the conversation with their viewpoints, never engage your ideas, and “suck the oxygen out of the room” with constant negativity about anything and everything. It’s no surprise you don’t like them. They are relegated to that “negative energy” kind of person that you could do without in your life. This negative energy person may well find their mate in this world, someone who has a similar Giver/Taker balance, but you’re not them. They may like you because you’re more of a Giver than them—you listen to them patiently, offer to do small gestures for them—but they too would not like someone significantly more negative than themselves. We all shun the excessive Taker with no exception. We are, on the other hand, amused with and drawn to the generous Giver, when compared to our own G/T baseline.

 To go a step further, current brain imaging technology has allowed the neuroscientific community to identify links between specific social activity and brain activity. Their research has found distinct locations in our brain that govern areas of Give and Take. This research has demonstrated that acts of compassion for others, which is indeed an act—a Give, stimulates or activates a specific part of our frontal cortex. This can be distinguished from other areas of the brain that are activated by displaying empathy, which while still a commendable quality, is not an actual act. Empathy is simply a feeling. The distinction seems to matter for brain development. Research also shows that individuals displaying excessive “anti-social” behavior activate their brain in altogether different patterns and actually have smaller areas of the frontal cortex governing compassion. It is believed that compassion begets compassion. Your brain actually grows and more easily facilitates more compassion the more you are compassionate (*).

 All of this is nice, nice that the scientific community is catching up to what we already know, what we’ve been experiencing for our whole existence. In fact, we don’t’ need brain scans to tell us what our own behavioral experience confirms every day in the ebb and flow of our daily lives. Finally, we should not latch on to these scientific findings to prove or disprove anyone’s belief or religious foundation. The world is a complicated place, people are complicated beings and any simple conclusions about brain size and the meaning of life almost assuredly will miss the mark. 

So, there you have it. The world can simply be categorized as a big Give or a big Take. All actions can be simplified to these two simple motives, and I put forth to you, surmise and postulate as they say in the philosophical world, that regardless of where you are on the scale of Give and Take, movement towards the Give will give you pleasure that is lasting. Movement towards the Take will give you pleasure that is fleeting. 

I also believe that any purpose in life must be definable in every act of life. In essence, there are no empty meaningless actions. Everything we do from dawn to dusk is an example of life’s purpose. It matters not whether it is mundane or exhilarating, it all has a purpose because it is all definable by Give or Take. We needn’t wait around for pivotal moments in our existence to prove to us that life has a purpose. Our actions are either self-sustaining, a Give to ourselves, or our actions are compassionate, a Give to others. Alternatively, our actions can be self-degrading or self-indulgent, a Take from ourselves or a Take from others. There is no in-between here. Some acts are subtle, merely thoughts, and some are grand and impact many lives. Either way, these acts are a Give or Take on a small or large scale. For example, a newborn suckles at her mother’s breast for nourishment. The child Takes, the mother Gives. This is the simplest and first of all life acts and it conforms to the Give or Take paradigm. In this simple act, purpose is born. Someone Gives for life to endure; someone Takes to ensure survival. I use the word Take “to ensure survival,” because it is a Take. But it is the only type of Take that is actually not a selfish indulgence since it seeks survival at the most primal level. The motives of this first act of Give and Take define the ideal for all Gives and Takes. The Give should at its best be a Give to sustain life; the Take, at its noblest, should be a Take simply to sustain life.

For me, it has become clear that happiness is primarily based on being a Giver more than being a Taker. When I’ve focused more on me and mine, materially or not, I’ve come away feeling a temporary illusory happiness. When I’ve focused on you and yours and with little or no recognition of me and mine, I’ve come away feeling a deep and lasting sense of calm, emotional balance and happiness. The former often has required me to “redose” me and mine over and over to keep the illusory happiness from fading. The latter is always uplifting, energizing and self-regenerating. 

Socrates* called the Take [pleasure seeking behavior] a form of relative happiness and, as such, its tendency is to fade with time. It’s a happiness that is relative to what came before. As time elapses, the relative before-and-after become part of our past, a distant memory yielding a happiness that is no longer tangible. I would add to this that not all acts yielding relative happiness are without virtue. We eat, for example, when we are hungry. Before, we have hunger pangs, after, we are satiated. We are happy in the moment but the feeling fades. Is this type of relative happiness a bad thing? I’d argue that it is not. It meets the basic rule of a self-sustaining Give to ourselves or a Take for primal survival. Some Takes are necessary, as we mentioned above with the suckling newborn. An overindulgence in food may alter the virtue in eating, making the Take less noble. So, be it relative or not, I believe the idea of happiness needs to go further—deeper; it needs to address the purpose of the act.

Alternatively, Socrates called the Give [philosophical pleasure], a form of non-relative happiness. There is no craving for something before, like many Takes, so there is no after to compare. The experience reflects a state of our being or our soul, as Socrates worded it. I would add that it changes who we are and becomes part of our nature. As such, it is a happiness that doesn’t fade. If anything, it uplifts and seeks to regenerate itself.

It took over two thousand years for this idea to catch on in the academic community. Philip Brickman was a modern-day pioneer in this area of study. A distinguished professor of social psychology, he published a study* in 1978 about lottery winners and disabled accident victims and proved what Socrates had already said—happiness stems not from what we have but what we do. Brickman later opined and proved that commitments to people, primarily, are the only source of deep satisfaction that give us purpose and ultimate joy.

While Brickman theorized about life’s purpose in academic jargon, my life experience has distilled it all down to a simple Give or Take, and to me, this Giver/Taker (G/T) concept of life, is life’s primary Truth, and it is the truest way to happiness. This almost seems, again, kind of trite or a cliché. For example, we’ve often heard of or seen portrayed, individuals who after years of success accumulating significant material wealth, achieve great joy from being a Giver. Sometimes giving much or all of their wealth to charity. Some achieve this goal early in life, some discern the impermanence of their wealth close to life’s final chapter and only then realize they are still chasing an illusion. To be clear, the choice before us is not to be a perfect noble Giver relegated to poverty, or a perfect Taker living a hedonistic life in lavish luxury. Life is not so simple. We all exist somewhere in-between. Our Giver/Taker status evolves throughout our lives, but for many, it never really changes. While a fulfilling life is a relative concept and means something different depending on your origins, I have no doubt that whoever you are, wherever you live and whatever you believe, movement on the scale from Taker to Giver is the primary way to fulfillment and lasting joy.

I’ve concluded that my life purpose is to Give, and to always try to Give more than I Take. On the arc of my life, I would like there to be an always increasing Giver/Taker balance. Achieving this goal is not easy. Life’s obligations, distracting realities and my frailties often lead me astray. Often! Being a Giver is not a natural human trait but one that is learned and that needs nurturing, and for me, that nurturing comes in large part from meditation and self-analysis in any form it can be attained. I rely on family, friends, coworkers, and neighbors to inspire and motivate me with stories of Giving that permeate our lives at every level. It’s a religion of life, and many formal religions seek to move our Giver/Taker balance in the direction of Giving more and Taking less. At their best, they serve to reinforce the primacy of life’s purpose: to Give and not Take.

That’s it. Simple. If your life’s purpose is to find a lasting sincere happiness, then perfecting this learned behavior would seem a primary goal.

 *:

Ashar, Yoni. “Empathic Care and Disress: Predictive Brain Markers and Dissociable Brain Systems.” Neuron:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2017.05.014

Paus, Tomás. “Mapping brain development and aggression.” The Canadian child and adolescent psychiatry review = La revue canadienne de psychiatrie de l'enfant et de l'adolescent vol. 14,1 (2005): 10-5.

Giorgia Silani, Claus Lamm, Christian C. Ruff, Tania Singer. “Right Supramarginal Gyrus Is Crucial to Overcome Emotional Egocentricity Bias in Social Judgements.” Journal of Neuroscience 25 September 2013, 33 (39) 15466-15476; DOI:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1488-13.2013

Mark K Setton, et al, Pursuit of Happiness, 11 June 2020, https://www.pursuit-of-happiness.org/history-of-happiness/socrates/

Philip Brickman, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 1978, Vol. 36, No. 8, 917-927

Brickman, P., & Coates, D. (1987). Commitment and mental health. In C.B. Wortman & R. M. Sorrentino (Eds.), Commitment, conflict, and caring (pp. 222-276). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. 

Wegner, B. R. (2020). A psychobiography of philip brickman: The life, work, and human concerns of a social psychologist (Order No. 27834860). Available from Publicly Available Content Database. (2411483477). Retrieved from https://search.proquest.com/docview/2411483477?accountid=34798

Bookends 

…[D]o good to parents, kinsfolk, orphans, the poor, the neighbor who is near of kin, the neighbor who is a stranger, the companion by your sided, the wayfarer (you meet)…

Quran 4:36

When we are born and during our early years, we are clearly Takers. It’s instinctual. No learning required. These survival instincts tell us to make noise and hope someone knows what to do. When we can see and grab hold of something we desire, we do just that. As we grow, we learn, first, to care for ourselves as a utilitarian need; feeding ourselves, potty training and dressing, to name a few. We likely wouldn’t survive on our own without a caretaker to protect us from the elements and to provide food in a form we could eat. Later, we learn to interact socially with others our age and this social interaction is rather interesting. It may seem that these early social engagements are instinctual since no one is coaching us in a play by play—pardon the pun. There are certainly moments of childhood play that are singular exploring activities; just you and the world, one on one. But our parents are always hovering, and social interactions must follow strict social guidelines. It becomes our first introduction to what will be a lifelong choice of Give and Take. At this tender age, the social pressures require sharing or taking turns. These are not necessarily traits that are instinctual, and they often need encouragement, repeatedly, until we are properly socially conditioned. It starts early, under the best of circumstances, and hopefully lays the groundwork for a lifetime of making choices that allows us to live harmoniously with others.

Throughout our early years, learning to socialize is a primary goal and that goal is focused on us not always putting our needs above others. Our parents are quite happy to see us share rather that grab. Grabbing was okay at one year of age, not at four or five. Generosity becomes a treasured quality of the young protégé. This quality eventually morphs into some balance of Give and Take and, unfortunately, few parents keep the tutelage current throughout our life. To the degree they can they probably try to help us make important decisions in our adult years. However, true happiness is not only based on a learned behavior. It may also require regular self-analysis and meditation to keep us focused on the daily small decisions of Give and Take that give our life purpose. Left to our own resources, we may very well become rudderless, allowing the shifting currents of random circumstances to determine our success at happiness.

Some people are blessed with excellent role models in their parents, siblings, friends or coworkers and emulating these various people help them to achieve a working template of what kind of person they will be. As life evolves, the vagaries of shifting currents may permit them to strengthen their Giver/Taker status or, maybe weaken it. It’s really left to chance, isn’t it? It’s left to chance if you leave it to chance. The influence people around you have is only as good as the people around you. It’s no wonder people are so mystified by the question, “does life have a purpose?” No one ever really wants to answer this question. Even the deeply religious hesitate before offering up mystical insights that provide harmony and purpose for them but doesn’t really help the uninitiated know how to apply that answer to the next small or big decision they have to make in their life.

Fast forward to our last chapter in life. Whenever that time comes, we interestingly find ourselves, knowingly or not, again on the receiving end. We are generally Takers. Some rare exceptions exist like daring acts of Giving that make the ultimate sacrifice. An almost purely Giving act. Otherwise, in the end, we are dependent on others, increasingly so, as our bodies fail us. We can still offer kind words of appreciation and our mere frail existence requiring the generosity of others may in some way be a Give to them, but on the scale of Give and Take we are basically Takers. Our loved ones don’t hold it against us, much like we don’t mind the neediness of a one-year-old—goes with the territory. Only difference between these two scenarios is that the one-year-old is given the benefit of the doubt. They get all the Give that someone can give. At the end of our chapter, we often get the Give that equates to the Give we gave throughout our life. If we’re lucky, maybe more.

At the beginning and end of life, the times we are either not mature enough to understand the Give or are too frail to Give, we do have a subtle way of Giving still. It’s a Give from pure existence. Our human condition responds to someone’s presence, especially someone we love, as a Give. Their daily needs of sustenance may be overwhelming at times, but their presence adds to our purpose of being and they, therefore, have purpose just in being. The tragic loss of an infant or young child would seem to have no meaning or purpose in itself. How do we reconcile a life’s purpose that was cut short in infancy? Despite the imbalance of Give and Take in these relationships, oddly enough, these parents do receive great joy from their young child despite the obvious daily Give. The mere presence of the child is a gift, a Give, that is unexplainable by rational argument but is undeniable by the mothers and fathers that experience the joy of life, even if just for a brief moment in this world. It is a pure unadorned experience that brings us to our basic utilitarian existence. 

This experience needn’t be limited to those we love the most. The homeless person that we often see on street corners, likewise, has seemingly no purpose, or a failed purpose some would say. None-the-less, there are those among us that Give to the homeless because it gives us meaning. Their existence, in essence, has purpose, if only to give us purpose in-kind.

The two previous examples, the child lost in infancy or the homeless without purpose, reveal to us the message in Philip Brickman’s research comparing lottery winners and the disabled: a life of commitments adds texture, meaning and joy to what would otherwise be an addiction to self-indulgent illusions. 

These are the bookends of our life. We are essentially Takers. It’s the human way. Odd that life’s purpose should require something else to fill the middle pages of our life. So be it. What is clear is that we can’t be Takers our whole life without alienating others like we alienated our four-year-old friends whom we didn’t want to share our toys with. Somehow, we learn that sharing has a return value. We get something back. Often just a feeling. I don’t know how or why. This feeling is pure, energizing and regenerating. Maybe that’s the only reason we are willing to share again. At first, it’s really sharing. You know you’ll get it back. Later it’s Giving. You don’t get anything material back. It’s a higher level of Give. It self-perpetuates. It pays forward. It makes you smile. The kind of smile that is stronger than a hearty laugh. The laugh will fade and be forgotten. The smile is a contentment that burrows deep and determines your next act.

If this could define our life in its entirety, then maybe that would be bliss. Though it’s not really a human experience I think we can attain, certainly not as an ongoing experience. Instead, somewhere along the arc of our life we balance the contentment of Giving with the illusory happiness of Taking. 

To be clear, the middle of our book of life need not be a pure Giver experience. It may be on some philosophical level, we need a Taker for a Giver to exist in us, like day needs night and hot needs cold. But we are not philosophers here, we are experiencing our lives and we know for sure that Giving and Taking need not be an equal balance to coexist. Equal balances may exist in nature and there are many truths in nature. The truth of happiness may be the only universal Truth unrelated to the physical world. In my opinion itisthe only Truth unrelated to the physical world. As such, this solitary Truth of the non-physical world, our existential being, is the happiness of Truth.The truth of happinessisthe happiness of Truth.

Takers

 The best way to find yourself is to lose yourself in the service of others.

Mahatma Gandhi

We are all Takers. It essentially seems instinctual to want to protect ourselves, care for ourselves and just have more of anything be it material or not. It seems weak in character to want less for yourself when everyone’s future is uncertain. Avowed Takers may feel these arguments justify their Darwinian approach to life. Me and mine must dominate you and yours. Survival of the fittest. My genes will win to regenerate.

This Taking in our adult years of life may be a character flaw, maybe not. I don’t know and I won’t pretend to know. What I do know is that concentrating on me and mine leaves me with less than when I concentrate on you and yours. You decide what to do with it. If you get joy from Giving to your parents, spouse, children and friends, there’s a good chance you’d get more joy from Giving to many more outside your circle. The feeling is the same and it grows without taking from your core. 

But as I said we are all Takers. We are Takers when we really shouldn’t be. We are Takers when we know better but can’t stop ourselves. We need it. It’s like an addiction. It makes us want to Take more. Accomplishing the task of Taking, especially when there was pent up desire behind the Take, makes it very satisfying. We think we feel happy but it’s illusory. We know it’s illusory because our happiness fades. It may be seconds, hours or days. When we have what we want, be it an opinion, a statement or thing, we get that neurotransmitter release of dopamine and it’s like we took a drug or just checked in to “social media.” Ah! We feel good. 

At some point, however, you’re no longer “happy” the way you were when you first got your fix—your Take. You’re now looking for some other acquisition. As mentioned in the chapter on Give or Take, The Socrates dilemma is in play—all Takes are relative, thus short-lived. Because the happiness fades what is needed is a “re-dosing” of that drug. Eventually you’re on the search for a new Take, an over-indulgence, maybe a utilitarian need but of course just fulfilling a basic need doesn’t give the high. You need to over-indulge to get the right kind of high. It has to be an indulgent Take. The over-indulgence is what gives the illusory happiness that will eventually need “redosing” again and again.

Where Giving is about you and yours, Taking is about me and mine. There is nothing expansive about me and mine. Me and mine primarily helps me not you. Me and mine can only help society as a trickle-down effect. If the desired action required me to Take but my truest intention was a trickle-down Give, then the action of course would be complicated and personal. Intent would rule the Giver/Taker status ratio; more Give than Take makes the ratio greater than one, less Give and more Take, less than one. Simple math but known only to the Giver/Taker. We should always strive to be G/T greater than one.

There are rare times when an aggressive Take seems acceptable like in the service of law enforcement or the military. While defending your people and homeland requires Taking the trickle-down Give is immeasurable. 

Be on the lookout for the charlatans who have perfected the practice of deception in Give and Take. They know who they are. These Takers have perfected the appearance of being a Giver. Some even go so far as to take leadership positions in organizations that pride themselves on Giver status. Clearly, the social benefits of being a Giver are stronger than being a Taker. Nobody likes Takers, especially when it’s excessive, and most especially when we are the victim of the Take. Taking is only tolerated when someone else suffers from the Take. As soon as the Take spreads like a cancer to include me and mine, I’m no longer pleased or indifferent. I may have supported someone else’s Take as a trickle-down benefit to society but only if my loss was minimal.

As such, it is always better to be a Taker in disguise. Large renown dedicated buildings are often the product of a charlatan Give but came after some serious Taking. The Taking image needed to be softened for public benefits. To this end, it is clear that even the robber barons among us Take as a Darwinian belief system but are fully aware of the social benefits of strong Giving. The key is, of course, how much of each happened and what’s their Giver/Taker ratio. And not all Gives and Takes are rated equally. The observer never really knows. These are personal dimensions that depend on true intent. Sometimes guessing comes close. Sometimes not. Sometimes a strong Give is the culmination of an awareness of the impermanence of material gains and wishing to make amends. A noble intent regardless of how their life was led. Often the Give is anonymous, evidence that the Giver knows the best Give is one where there is no Take. Finally, not all that have to Give were aberrant Takers. Being successful is not a crime.

In 1889 in Johnstown, Philadelphia, the dam that was expected to break, broke. Over two thousand residents were swept away by water, mud and debris. The private club that owned the reservoir and maintained the dam had been warned that it was old and needed repair. The sixty titans of industry that made up the exclusive club ignored the warnings. In the aftermath of this tragedy one titan sought to rebuild the one structure used by all in Johnstown and is often the foundation of any community. That titan was Andrew Carnegie and that building was the local library which still stands to this day. Carnegie was distraught by the loss of life due to his negligence. He would go on to build over three thousand libraries, as well as Carnegie Hall, one of the most distinguished performance centers in the world, and what would later become Carnegie Mellon University, a renowned institution for science and technology. Carnegie did not want his name attributed to Carnegie Hall, a Give he intended for the people of New York and the world. Years later, at the urging of board members to use his name, he assented. By the end of his life, he had given most of his fortune to charity and felt it the responsibility of all successful people to do the same. Carnegie is an example of someone who probably gained his success from some serious Taking. He was probably quite good at the Take. He also knew the importance of Giving and didn’t wait till his last chapter to do it. Only he knows if he achieved True happiness. In the end it’s a personal endeavor.

J Paul Getty was an equally successful titan but had a different perspective on the Giver/Taker concept. Essentially, he took and didn’t stop Taking until his death. If he Gave, it was indirect, a trickle-down sort of Give. Again, it’s a personal endeavor. It did seem from his biography that acquiring “things” was his primary obsession until his death. We can only hope he had moments of True happiness at some point in his life.

What is clear from these obvious known facts about our society is that on the largest level, people are at least conflicted about their Taker status and often try to assuage their guilt or at least amend their public image by becoming known Givers of permanent named structures in our community. If this proves anything it is that in our small lives, the universal Truth still applies. Happiness is attained by Giving. It can’t be purchased at any price, any where, at any time. It must be earned slowly, through deliberate acts of kindness—of Give.

A final thought on Takers. Negative words or even thoughts about other people is a Take. We actually hate to be around negative people for just that reason. Those who always pick out the easy to criticize attributes of others, and sometimes make them up along the way, strike us as intense Takers. We have a natural repulsion to these people because they drain our energy. Negative thoughts require emotional energy in a way that positive thoughts do not. 

Elevating your stature at someone’s expense either by thought or verbal interaction is an insidious Take. The quiet thought-Take is clearly cowardice. The in-your-face verbal-Take is cruel and inhumane. If you’re reading this book the latter should not apply to you, though even well-intentioned individuals occasionally speak too frankly when pushed to their limits. The former, however, the quiet thought-Take, is something we are all guilty of to more or less a degree. Our willingness to actually Give to others is dependent on how we think of them before the Give. If we allow our minds to cultivate the worst assumptions of people, we are much further from ever Giving to them.

Comparisons

Thousands of candles can be lighted from a single candle, and the life of the candle will not be shortened. Happiness never decreases by being shared.

Gautama Buddha

This seemingly innocuous word makes Takers of us all. At the precise moment of a Take a comparison was made and someone did not measure up. This victim of the Take was deemed not valuable enough by comparison to warrant equal respectful treatment. We took from them essentially because we could, we were better than them. There it is, I said it. This is the crux of almost all Takes—a disregard for another individual. Of course, this doesn’t apply to the young, old or infirm.

On the surface this seems radical and accusatory. As I said earlier, we are all Takers, when we least expect it and often because we can’t help ourselves. It seems we should simply be left alone with our Taker affliction and not be judged on it. Especially if we’re all guilty of the crime. How do we countenance Taking from our loved ones with the premise that all Takes start with unfavorable comparisons? This really makes us look bad. It seems unforgivable with immediate family, barely tolerable with friends and, maybe okay with strangers. If only life were so neatly compartmentalized. If we could just compare and judge strangers and not do it with loved ones, then maybe it would be acceptable. Maybe we could live with that. But that’s not how it works, is it? We are who we are. If we judge, we judge. We judge our parents, spouses, children, neighbors, friends and everyone else up the chain of life. 

Taking is easier on the psyche if we don’t value the victim quite so much. The comparing and judging give us psychological relief from guilt because, “They’re not good enough.” This is why we dehumanize our enemies on the battlefield, give them derogatory names that make the kill, the Take, more tolerable. This is also why it’s so difficult to wrap our heads around Giving to someone we don’t really value. The preconception, pre-comparison and judging, of who they are in relation to me, makes them unworthy of a Give and possibly very ripe for a Take. Anytime we see a Take of major proportions we are looking at a total disregard for the victim. Some might think the Take was a one-sided event, that it only reflected the Takers desire to have without any judgement on the victim of the Take. Not so. We don’t live alone in this world.

Let’s be more subtle here. If we are to Give we have to consider the other person an equal or at least have thought of what they would like us to do for them and value it enough to do it. That’s a lot of thinking. Generally, we don’t think this much before we act. We sort of have a reflex quick assessment of who this person is. We use appearance, mannerisms, diction and many other incalculable observations to compare and finally judge if the other person measures up.

In my place of employment, we all wear uniforms that have no obvious markers of rank or responsibility. I commonly see clients address an employee with professionalism and courtesy only to change their tune when they realize the person is a few rungs down the ladder of influence. Worst still, is the deprecatory tone given to the leader of a team because of physical traits that the client assumed to mean they could not be someone of influence. These clients then backpedal and swallow their pride with apologies when they realize they’re talking to a final decision maker. 

Probably the worst comparisons are the ones we make at home. The expectations we have of loved ones or the continued slights of inconsiderateness, suggest we never really think of them the way we do ourselves. It’s insidious and subconscious and affects the people we love most. It seems the liberties we take at home are actually more revealing of our Giver/Taker status than what we do in public. Fear of criticism from our loved ones should cut more to the core than that from a stranger but the peculiarity of people, is that it’s just not so. We are less self-conscious at home and thus, we let our true selves’ surface. We dominate conversations with only our opinion, cut others off mid-sentence, serve our dinner portions ahead of others, are first to decide the entertainment options, or leave the bulk of the chores to someone else. This all can sound too familiar. What we do at home can be the best of who we are but is also often the worst of who we are.

There is no quick solution to this comparison judgment. We seem to have an internal need to feel good about ourselves, sometimes even if it’s at other’s expense. Our parenting may lessen or increase this trait in us. Our choice of friends or coworkers may also influence the depth of our affliction to judge. Like I’ve said, we are all Takers—we all do it. It seems instinctive, though it’s likely learned. Societies with more income or educational disparities may see it even more than those that are more homogenous. Either way, we do it without much thought and to undo it we need to apply a lot of thought. Learning to Give is real active learning, there’s nothing reflexive about it. If we learn early in life, then like everything else, it can be a part of our fabric. If we need to learn late, then it can be like learning a language as an adult. It takes repetition, meditation, self-analysis and surrounding yourself with like-minded people to perfect it.

Author Eric Clark includes exerpts from his 2018 publication The Truth of Happiness.

Copies available on Amazon.