And yet there is a duality that has always struck me as important, though hard to explain: it's easiest to be happy when you're striving toward a goal you believe in. But you need to keep your sense of self, your ego, non-attached to the outcome of the striving.

That is, you need to invest yourself 100% into doing things that are important to you, but remain detached from whether you ultimately achieve what you wanted to achieve.

I think Buddhists call this "skillful attachment".

If something in the exterior world makes you discontent, then it is not that object which troubles you, but rather your judgement of it; yet to blot out this judgement instantly is within your power. And if your dissatisfaction is based on the condition of your soul, who can prohibit you from correcting your views? Likewise, if you are discontent because you are not doing what seems reasonable to you, why not be active rather than discontent? "But something stronger than me is obstructing me." Still, do not be discontent; for the cause for your inaction is not within you. "But life has no meaning for me if this is not done." Well then, end your life, as calm as if you had succeeded; but don't forget to forgive your adversaries.

Words that strike me in their simplicity and depth every time I read them, but that's Marc Aurel for ya :)

"Google could not find that quote in any translation for Meditations"

That's because I translated it into English from a German translation of Meditations ^^

here's the same thing without that extra step:

http://ancienthistory.about.com/library/bl/bl_aurelius_bkvii...

If therefore it be a thing external that causes thy grief, know, that it is not that properly that doth cause it, but thine own conceit and opinion concerning the thing: which thou mayest rid thyself of, when thou wilt. But if it be somewhat that is amiss in thine own disposition, that doth grieve thee, mayest thou not rectify thy moral tenets and opinions. But if it grieve thee, that thou doest not perform that which seemeth unto thee right and just, why doest not thou choose rather to perform it than to grieve? But somewhat that is stronger than thyself doth hinder thee. Let it not grieve thee then, if it be not thy fault that the thing is not performed. 'Yea but it is a thing of that nature, as that thy life is not worth the while, except it may be performed.' If it be so, upon condition that thou be kindly and lovingly disposed towards all men, thou mayest be gone. For even then, as much as at any time, art thou in a very good estate of performance, when thou doest die in charity with those, that are an obstacle unto thy performance.

You know what, I think I like my version more :P

Ovid, Virgil, Horace...

Why would you think that you're off base? From what I gather Marcus Aurelius is a well known* thinker/writer - just ordered a copy of Mediations for myself after reading this post and comments.

* edit

Fyi: you can grab a copy of Meditations from a number of classics sites on the internet:

http://classics.mit.edu/Antoninus/meditations.html

?

http://www.google.com/search?q=%22marc+aurel%22

"Mark Aurel, auch Marc Aurel oder Marcus Aurelius"

Thanks for the link, might be good for some light reading until I get the physical copy.

So maybe check it out if you find the old versions slow going.

"Your right is only to work, and never to its fruits. Don't be motivated by the fruits of work. Nor should you be attached to inaction."

Excellent point. A bad outcome realized through a correct decision making process is painful, but is still a "better" result than a good outcome realized through a flawed decision making process. When poker players go "on tilt" they start breaking their process and it shows in their long run results.

There are few places where this is more on display than in high stakes poker tournaments.

Why not work to achieve things of value precisely because they are of value to you?

If you are fixated on the goal, rather than being present performing the actions that will get you to the goal, you are actually less likely to reach the goal successfully. Thinking about the goal obsessively is counterproductive.

Maybe "detach from the outcome" is a better word. Anchor your happiness and well-being on performing the actions within your control that you believe will take you to that outcome, and do not make that happiness and well-being conditional on reaching that outcome.

We actually need very little to be happy, but people now live their lives in way they were not designed to be. As a primordial tribesmen, all people needed were the love and camaraderie of their fellow tribesmen (ie work with close friends), enjoy the thrill of going out on a hunt and being recognized for success (self driven accomplishment and social status), find a mate and raise a family without being a wage slave (adequate free time, no boss), and other aspects of life where you are free to choose.

Today's corporate world has none of these simple aspects. You don't get to choose your colleagues and often don't have anything in common with them. Your work is often assigned to you, and both recognition and reward is shifted towards the company or boss. You have a boss. You make money but all your time is taken away.

You might argue we are materially better off, but biologically our brains our programmed to be happy in the old tribal way.

Some of Paul Graham's essays talk about the same issues.

"All of the white people who joined Indian tribes loved it and refused to go back to white civilization. All the Indians who joined white civilization hated it and did everything they could to go back to their previous tribal lives."

http://squid314.livejournal.com/340809.html (There's a lot more on the subject than just the bit I quoted.)

There were challenges, but generally you had the opportunity to overcome them as the default path. Today the default path does not necessarily lead to self actualization.

Many of us who post here happen to want the same thing: freelancing, side project income, small business, start up. This can't simply be a coincidence, and in my view what they have in common is the autonomy and accomplishment needs we have.

I think longing for external recognition is a sign of a deeply wounded soul, of a person lacking the most fundamental self-love and self-esteem.

Additionally, it's a common misconception that primordial man was a poor wretch that scrounged for food, fought larger predators and generally lived a life in constant fear and hunger.

I once read an article on Mark's Daily Apple (http://www.marksdailyapple.com/about-2/who-is-grok/#axzz2ENJ...) that paints quite a different picture of a paleolithic lifestyle.

From the article, the paleolithic man, "...leads a life of relative peace, consistent rhythm, adequate sleep, and little stress. There are times of scarcity, to be sure, but his body is adapted to generally weather their strain."

As an entrepreneur, my goal is to earn enough to allow me live more simply and get back into the proper rhythm of life. How much money is that? I don't know yet, but the primary goal isn't to get rich, it's to get free.

I wouldn't worry about stock price as you hopefully never have to sell a good income payer. But if you are buying, at some point a good dividend payer will fall until it's cheap enough for a good return, ie wait for the next crash. I think the dividend stocks are being sold off now because of uncertainty over tax rules in 2013 for dividends, and also since money has been chasing yield and made those stocks overbought.

This does not lead to happiness. Happiness is internal.

If you become happy first from examining yourself internally, then you will naturally make decisions that will lead you to your goals.

For example, if by looking inward and realizing that your goal for the next few years is to become a successful musician, you will probably gravitate to one of the major musical cities, LA, New York or Nashville.

However, if you realize that being a family man and creating a healthy family is your real goal, then having a decent job in a nice suburb is probably where you will end up.

I reconnected with one of these friends, and he told me his life wasn't perfect. He hadn't reached some state of perpetual bliss that I'd imagined. And he envied that I got to work on creative problems that provided constant challenge. Then he paid for lunch and drove off in his Porsche. If everyone can be happy or unhappy regardless of material things (as long as their basic needs are met), is it better to be rich and happy rather than middle-class and happy?

http://wws.princeton.edu/news/Income_Happiness/

I find it hard to think of someone whose annual income is in the 200k+ range but who is in massive debt as rich or wealthy. Similarly, someone whose annual income is below 50k but who has no debt, owns their own home free and clear and has massive savings could easily be thought of as wealthy. Of course, "massive" when talking about money is relative to income and debt/savings are likely to be orthogonal to happiness to a large extent. With regards to money and happiness, I think the Micawber principle states it best: "Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure nineteen pounds nineteen and six, result happiness. Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure twenty pounds ought and six, result misery."

He says nothing about trying to find the best of everything or making sure to squeeze every ounce of happiness out of every decision you make. He's saying people who are unhappy should stop and think about whether or not they're pursuing things that might make them happy in the major aspects of their lives (location, career, friends, hobbies, etc.).

I don't buy into your BS about "learning to be happy with what you have" because it glosses over the whole "what you have" part, which is the crux of the issue. That's like asking miserable people "Have you tried being happy instead of being unhappy?" Brilliant. I'm sure you'll be a top contender for the Nobel Happiness Prize this year.

It all comes down to, as you've alluded to, having perspective. I set a goal early in my undergraduate career to be in the very position I'm in today: working for a stable company with a lot of job security, and the ability to use it as a stepping stone in the event I'd like to take on more risk. It's when I remembered the fact that I set that goal and accomplished it fully that I regained the perspective that while the grass may be greener, my grass is already as green as I had always wanted it.

Which becomes its own struggle. Once you've hit an optimal shade of green, there is nothing left to do. Half of the enjoyment comes from actively working to make your proverbial lawn grow to be so green. Do you rip it up and start over to relive that enjoyment, or sit back and watch it grow?

(I'm not an entrepreneur, just a software engineer.)

"I will be happy when I get promoted/I buy a house/I move area/Some other future event happens", seems to me to be some sort of mental defence to justify being unhappy now, because obviously you can't be happy now because X hasn't happened yet. The event that's due to happen never makes them happy when it does happen though, they just make another event to pin their supposed future happiness to, all the while missing that life is happening now, friends and family and good times are around now.

Perhaps it's part of the human condition.

Some things are awful and you should get out -- but I imagine for a lot of us on this site we can chalk it up to first world problems and not living more in the moment.

I once read (I wish I could remember where, I'm reaching back 10 years here) that if happiness is your goal then you will never achieve it. You will be so busy "looking" for happiness that you will never realize that you are happy.

Instead of making happiness you goal, a person should instead make tangible, achievable goals. Using your example of finding the best city to live in, you could define things that makes a city the best city for you. Good coffee shops, good people, lots of meetups, bars, schools.. the list can go on.

Here are some great ted talks surrounding the topic: http://www.ted.com/talks/barry_schwartz_on_the_paradox_of_ch... http://www.ted.com/talks/martin_seligman_on_the_state_of_psy...

[0] http://www.amazon.com/The-Joyless-Economy-Psychology-Satisfa...

Also, it is written by somebody who purports to understand happiness for a sizable fraction of people.

At least he causes happiness in a large number of people who laugh heartily at such a self-centered approach.

Why does that seem strange? There is a large body of research into human happiness. I haven't looked into it closely, but I would be surprised if it completely failed to generalise. It seems completely reasonable to me that someone could suggest "if you act like this rather than like that, you'll be happier" and be right about a majority of people.

See for example: http://lesswrong.com/lw/bq0/be_happier/

(This is a seperate question from whether the author of this particular article knows what he's talking about. I do not take a position on that.)

I think another thing to remember is that no matter how hard we try, it's not really possible to guarantee that our lives will always be "improving". Somewhere sometime we would all be better off learning to take the good with the bad - this will free us up to experiment and try new things without being completely reckless. As a result, I believe we'll all live more fulfilling lives.

I actually have 10 years experience with this. I've somewhat settled in one city (Rio) after all those years searching and moving. It's the best fit I've found but not the best in all categories. I think that's the best one can hope for, without turning it into a 20-yr quest...

Most of us can't just find what we're really looking for in life. It doesn't exist yet. We have to make the future, and that's a lot of difficult work.

It's like looking for the 'perfect distro'. Just pick one and learn to love it.

As Buckaroo Banzai says: No matter where you go, there you are.

See also: Optimizers vs. satisficers.