I am not happy
by Paulo Coelho
A comment that is very often heard in interviews is: “ ... and now that you
are a happy person ...”, which provokes the immediate reaction: “Did I say I was
happy?”
I am not happy, and the quest for happiness as a principal
objective is not part of my world. Of course, ever since I can remember, I have
done what I felt like doing. That is why I was admitted three times to a
psychiatric clinic, spent a few terrifying days in the dungeons of Brazil’s
military dictatorship, and just as quickly lost and won friends and girlfriends.
I walked down paths that, if I could turn back, I might avoid today, yet
something always pushed me forward, and it certainly was not the quest for
happiness. What interests me in life is curiosity, challenges, the good fight
with its victories and defeats. I bear many a scar, but I also carry with me
moments that never would have happened if I had not dared beyond my limits. I
confront my fears and moments of loneliness, and I think that a happy person
never goes through this.
But that is of the least importance: I am
content. And contentedness is not exactly a synonym of happiness, which to me
seems like a dull Sunday afternoon without any challenges, just rest that in a
couple of hours grows into tedium, the same evening television programs, the
prospect of Monday waiting with its routine.
I mention all this because
I was surprised by the long leading article in one of the most prestigious
magazines in the United States that is normally dedicated to political matters.
The theme was: “The science of happiness: is it in our genetic system?” Aside
from the usual things (tables of happier or less happy countries, sociological
studies on man’s search for a meaning to life, eight steps to finding harmony),
the article includes some interesting observations that for the very first time
made me see that I am not alone in my ideas:
A] - countries where
income is under US$ 10,000 a year are countries where the majority of the
population is unhappy. However, it was discovered that from that figure upwards,
monetary difference is not all that important. A scientific study conducted on
the 400 richest persons in the United States shows that they are only slightly
happier than those who earn US$ 20,000. The logical consequence: of course,
poverty is something unacceptable, but the old saying that “money does not bring
happiness” is being proved in laboratories.
B] – happiness is just
another of the tricks that our genetic system plays on us to carry out its only
role, which is the survival of the species. So, to force us to eat or make love,
it is necessary to add an element called “pleasure”.
C] - however happy
people say they are, nobody is satisfied: we always have to be with the
prettiest woman, buy a bigger house, change cars, desire what we do not have.
This is also a subtle manifestation of the instinct of survival: at the moment
when everyone feels completely happy, no-one will dare to do anything different
and the world will stop evolving.
D] therefore, both on the physical
plane (eating, making love) and on the emotional plane (always wanting something
we do not have), the evolution of humanity has dictated one important and
fundamental rule: happiness cannot last. It will always be made of moments, so
we can never get comfortable in an armchair and just contemplate the
world.
Conclusion: better forget this idea of seeking happiness at any
cost and look for more interesting things like unknown seas, strangers,
provocative thoughts, risky experiences. Only in this way will we live our human
condition to the full and contribute to a more harmonious civilization at peace
with other cultures. Of course, everything has a price, but it is worth paying.
Good reading. It reminds me of Abraham Maslow, a great psychologist known today for his proposal of a hierarchy of human needs. Self Actualization, the 5th element of his hierarchy model which at time speaks on boundry lines of eastern philosophies like meditation, higher level of consciousness.
ReplyDeleteA google search can give you tons of sites and pretty interesting stuff about his research work if one wish to read scientific approach to what Paulo wanted to tell in simple language (which is difficult too in a sense.) :)
Anyway, good post and it was good reading. Thanks.
No prob. I think Maslow is even a harder read since it's more technical. I remember him from my General Psychology class in college. Interesting, nonetheless. Although I never really thought of the need for self-actualization in connection with Eastern philosophies..... Hmm, now there's something to think about.
ReplyDeleteJoni, you really thought Maslow was difficult? Most people quote his ideas today because his stuff is so accessible.
ReplyDeleteDabrowski did a lot of interesting writing about self-actualization in his Theory of Positive Disintegration that is much more in-depth and interesting than the work of Maslow.
Forgot how to do links in the comments, but you can cut and past this if anyone is interested in reading this uber-nerd (fascinating) stuff:
http://members.shaw.ca/positivedisintegration/
Hey, it "auto-linked." That's nice.
ReplyDeleteNot that I think it's that difficult. I'm just saying that it's more technical than Coelho's article.
ReplyDeleteI concur with that.
ReplyDelete