Back to the main page

This page updated 15 October 2014

WAYS TO SERENITY

By Sarah ("Sally") Byrnes

Ways for members of groups to promote Serenity in themselves and society

Note from the writer, Dan Byrnes:
This article on Serenity, as the word tends to be used in groups associated with 12-step programs, grew out of a long preoccupation with views on Serenity that my mother had, Sarah Byrnes.
She died unexpectedly in mid-2000 after a short illness, aged 83, so ending the drafting of this article.
This is why the article ends with a major question, not an answer to the question.
It so happened that my father was an alcoholic, which from my teen years gave my mother much unhappiness (He died unexpectedly in 1976). In her search for answers, she met with Alcoholics Anonymous (A. A.) and its 12-step program in the 1960s. Her own answer to unhappiness was to become a devout Catholic, but she still followed the 12-step program of A. A. with great interest.
Since she believed that A. A. provided wonderful answers to serious problems, she watched with great interest how the 12-step program of A. A. gradually became applied and adapted to other sets of problems now commonly recognised - gambling, narcotics use, &c.
My mother had little formal education, and so the views expressed here are not exactly her own. The article presented here arose since she had asked me to write down her views, help her to organise her conclusions from her own wide reading, and so on. I wrote and researched, she considered and reconsidered, until interrupted by illness.
The next step in her project, when she died, might have been development of a set of exercises (questions and answers, consideration of follow-up materials) for various sorts of groups. This project she wished to promote - at the age of 83!
Being a devout Catholic, yet preoccupied also with the philosophy of A. A., my mother of course noticed the differences in outlook between A. A. and the Church (or indeed, any of the mainstream Christian denominations), and she never satisfactorily reconciled those differences in her own mind.
Periodically, these differences in outlook would make her quite impatient. She wrote letters. She sought new answers to fresh levels of questions. She dreamt up new questions about the attitudes of the clergy of the mainstream religions.
Her personal search concerning Serenity then took to the hearts of many matters. For those who suspect that clearly asking serious questions is nearly equal in value to vaguely providing not-so-clear answers, my mother's search was, I hope, a success.

Preamble:

THIS excursion into finding ways to promote serenity in oneself or others has grown from an encounter with the 12-step program of Alcoholics Anonymous (AA). The founders of AA became attracted to an anonymously written prayer now known as The Serenity Prayer.

This article views The Serenity Prayer as a major advance in outlook, since it redefined the context in which serenity can be sought. This has not been recognised sufficiently, and the article here outlines various implications arising since 1943 when the founders of AA adopted the prayer as a help to promoting their messages. In the 1930s and 1940s, their work represented a great advance in ways of helping people who are experiencing difficulties, to find greater fulfillment in human relationships, and to regain their self-respect.

There are many programs - including traditional religion - which help people remove themselves from negative aspects of lifestyle, but fewer which can reliably promote positive emotions, and, the possession of serenity. How does, how would, such a program work? Serenity... how does one understand oneself and others? Are there any helpful advances in the psychology of self-understanding? The Delphic Oracle of the Ancient Greeks recommended: Know Thyself.

Serenity is a quality noted in all human cultures, admiringly. The problem is, that we are not told why this is so. Whenever we try to define serenity, we almost naturally define it in terms of our own cultural values and experience. If admiration of human serenity is in fact a universal response in social life, to limit it by reference to our own cultural background is simply to make an early mistake, however understandable.

Older views of Serenity:

Older definitions of serenity tend to rely on comparisons with the quietness of states of nature. Serene: clear, or fair and calm. Having its brightness undimmed, marked by peaceful repose, tranquil, unruffled, placid.
Dictionary definitions of serenity given here come from: Webster Comprehensive Dictionary, Encyclopedic Edition. Chicago, J. G. Ferguson Publishing Co., 1984. The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary: On Historical Principles. London, OUP, 1973.

Another dictionary definition provides, calm, tranquil, untroubled, unperturbed, inward calm, and quotes: "He who resigns the world is in constant possession of a serene mind." Another definition: serenity, cheerful tranquillity of mind.

Literary views:

Some literary views on serenity: include: Irving, The Sketch Book, The Angler. "There is certainly something in angling... that tends to produce a gentleness of spirit, and a pure serenity of mind."
Joseph Addison wrote: "Mirth is like a flash of lightning that breaks through a gloom of clouds, and glitters for a moment; cheerfulness keeps up a kind of daylight in the mind and fills it with a steady and perpetual serenity."
A bookish Henry Longfellow wrote: "The love of learning, the sequestered nooks, And all the sweet serenity of books..."
Bartlett's Familiar Quotations. New York, Little, Brown and Co. Edition 16, 1992. On the Internet at the time of writing, however, Bartlett's provided no useful entries for Serenity.

Some other literary views, are: Smiling always with a never-fading serenity of countenance, and flourishing in an immortal youth.
Isaac Barrow, Duty of Thanksgiving.

The serenity of the wise is merely the art of imprisoning their agitation in the heart.
La Rochefoucald, Maximes, No. 20.

The star of the unconquered will,
He rises in my breast,
Serene and resolute, and still,
And calm, and self-possessed.
Longfellow, The Light of Stars, St. 7.

Serene will be our days and bright,
And happy will our nature be,
When love is an unerring light,
And joy its own security.
William Wordsworth, Ode to Duty, 1, 17.
Some items here are drawn from: Burton Stevenson, Stevenson's Book of Quotations: Classical and Modern. London, Cassell, 1955.

There is a Spanish term, sereno, the night watch.

There is no entry however for serenity in a literary companion dictionary.
David Grambs, Literary Companion Dictionary: Words about Words. London, Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1984.

By the 1940s, an unknown writer had decided that such views as quoted above had reached their use-by date, perhaps because the view that people are captains of their own soul was rapidly being discredited by new advances in psychology. The view of serenity adopted by this writer was perhaps closest to the view of La Rochefoucald above.

A new way of looking at serenity: The Serenity Prayer

God grant me the serenity
to accept the things I cannot change,
The courage to change the things I can,
And the wisdom to know the difference.

The few words of The Serenity Prayer can encourage much meditation or contemplation - but where would this lead us?
The Serenity Prayer incidentally is dated 1943 in Bartlett's Quotations.

Meanwhile, the founders of A. A. were also inspired by Jesus' Sermon on the Mount. Alcoholics Anonymous, however, encourages religious tolerance, and speaks mostly of God "as we understand Him".

Is there, should there be, an argument concerning serenity? Serenity, of course, is one of the implicit promises of proper adherence to religious practice. Should we ask: which religion? Or, which variety of which religion? Not really. It is not only a question of religion.

Also, on inspection, we find that it is seldom stated clearly, by which psychological processes, the properly religious person might achieve serenity.

Today, bookshops abound with books on self-help, on abandoning forms of co-dependency, advice on ways to live more happily or effectively, books filled with new advice from a psychotherapist with fresh insights. Books of old philosophy reconsidered, of fresh interpretations of respected prophets, of inspirational verse, or cullings of the world's wisdom as expressed through the ages.

But as we might learn from meeting people who are serene, serenity is anything but a product of book learning. This is because serenity is action-orientated. This is interesting, since in the 12-step program contexts in which The Serenity Prayer is usually read, it is often interpreted as a means of obtaining or maintaining quietitude. So here, we should ask: action about what, motivated by what? And perceived as what?

The words of The Serenity Prayer are in fact a marked advance on older, dictionary definitions of serenity.

The words, "and the courage to change the things we can" is a call to action of some kind.

In the context of A. A., this call is for the person to re-involve themselves with the world and with others in a new way. The call could also assist anyone, in any situation in life, rethink they way they involve themselves in life.

One question the serene person provokes in us, though mostly unasked, is: what do they know about life that I don't? This question arises at precisely the point where knowledge begins: at the realization that we are ignorant of knowledge, or lacking in a quality.

Here we can say, that the quality of serenity implicitly asks this question of society-in-general in the most diplomatic and least-offensive manner possible. This may well be what the quality of serenity is actually for?

Is serenity a gift from God? A quality arising from, or with, accidents of personality and background? A by-product of an excellent education? Perhaps, a by-product of an active (and successful) spiritual life? Perhaps a happy and compensating accident arising from an encounter with suffering? Or is serenity something which can be learned and improved by practice? As some Buddhists might say, by "giving right attention"?

Serenity is very often a literary word; it refers to a quality of character, a state of being, that seems to be above trouble.
In Macquarie Dictionary, wisdom is given as: the quality or state of being wise, knowledge of what is true or right coupled with just judgement as to action; sagacity, prudence, or common sense.

Sometimes, serenity is synonymous with tranquillity. However, if you have ever seen a serene-looking animal, or a day of serene weather, it will be apparent that serenity is not only a quality or state of human character and self-presentation. The word serenity seems to refer us to a tranquil state transcending an earlier state of trouble. Not in the sense of having avoided trouble, but in the sense of having survived a time of trouble rather well, as in the calm after the storm.

And perhaps the reason that cats are so popular as pets, as familiar domestic spirits, is because they at least seem to be so serene? But annoy then, they will hiss and spit and claw!

This is actually an important question, since part of the social perception of the value of serenity is its seeming quality, a sense of its apparency. In both social and personal life, in our own inner life, serenity is most respected when it is seen to be present. Serenity in also felt to be present.

Whether serenity is actually present, deep within, is somewhat more debatable, and this is one reason that The Serenity Prayer asks for courage. When serenity is dissolved or replaced by a state of trouble, it is of course, no longer there to be respected, yet, we observe in others, we have the experience ourselves, that serenity can be regained.

Serenity resembles happiness in that it can come and go. However, we can be serene without being happy, and happy without being serene. Why?
James Houston, In Search of Happiness: A Guide to Personal Contentment. Sydney, Lion Books, 1990. In Houston's introduction, he writes: The main argument of this book is that happiness is not a product, nor even a personal achievement. ... happiness is the fruit of a gifted life, of goodness received from others, and love given and shared. Happiness can only come our way when we have a strong life in relationship with others. If God is love, then he is the ultimate source of all friendship. In his first chapter, Houston writes: "Happiness is everything that gives well-being to one's self; harmony and assurance to others; depth and perspectives to the spiritual realities around and above us." ...[but, as a warning], Happiness can be true or false. Houston also feels, happiness must be shared, otherwise it is lonely-making.
Another definition of the meaning of life is provided by the Dalai Lama: The meaning of life is the sense of happiness you take in being of usefulness to the people around you.

The possibility that serenity can be lost and regained is perhaps, also, one reason that serenity tends to be closely associated with changeable states of happiness? However, to equate happiness with serenity is to confuse a personal achievement in a complex philosophical analysis, with an emotional state of general satisfaction we call happiness, where we probably hope our happiness will be maintained with the aid of serenity. How serenity might provide stability to our happiness is also an important question, but it is a philosophical question, not a psychological or emotional question.

Serenity and Wisdom:

transcend: to go above, or beyond a limit:
Transcend: to go or be above or beyond (a limit, something with limits); surpass or exceed, to go beyond in elevation, excellence, extent, degree, etc. Surpass, excel, or exceed. In theology, transcendent means being beyond matter and having a continuing existence therefore outside the created world. In philosophy, transcendent means: that which is beyond experience.

While serenity may be a gift of God, it would also seem that some people can become aware of what it is - see transcending - to go beyond a limit.

If serenity seems to suggest a matter of surviving a time of trouble, perhaps the transcendent nature it seems to have can be conveniently approached by asking: where are the limits?

What are the limits that prevent the development of serenity? Is it indeed the case that to develop serenity, we need to proceed beyond certain limits. Or, to have been forced beyond certain limits, and survived?

What are the limits?

It would seem clear that the traditional major vices usually seen in humanity, as listed by Houston - anger, pride, deceit, envy, greed, fear, gluttony, lust and sloth - will provide limits to the development of serenity - simply because they provoke trouble between people. But if we have noticed that some animals can seem serene, others not, in what sense is serenity a quality only produced or enhanced by moral qualities that humans respect, or degraded by lack of them?

Serenity often seems to be admired. To see it in someone often also makes us simply wonder, where does it come from? Why is it admired, or admirable? We also feel intuitively, that serenity might be something apart from possession of purely moral qualities - or lack of them. What is it about serenity that seems to be - it has much to do with reactions to trouble, or to the risk of trouble?

The expression of serenity also has to do with a willingness to be concerned. This makes for questions of balance. Here, the question becomes: how much concern should be felt, expressed or acted on?

Making a choice on any extent to which we should be concerned about something partakes of wisdom - and anyone remembering the urgencies of youth could perhaps tell stories about lacks of wisdom.

Making a choice on the extent that we could or should be concerned also suggests an imposition of limits, and refers us back to the words of The Serenity Prayer about the ability or not to change our circumstances, or, ability to modify our feelings and behaviour, that is, to learn what our powers actually are...

and this implies... knowledge of ourselves and our inner life, knowledge of our circumstances. It means, subjectivity and objectivity being unified, or reunified, to the best of our ability. Where our best is also... a limit.

On our knowledge of ourselves:

No man or woman is an island, as the poet says. As individuals, we all live in an interdependently mixed social field, which is why the serene person, one who can seemingly transcend trouble and retain equanimity, is often so admired.

In the wider social field, the transpersonal field, the existence of serenity is very much a product of the perceptions of a variety of people. This is part of the seeming aspect of the possession of serenity, an aspect seldom discussed.

To be able to gain a reputation as serene, the serene person needs an audience. If it is a virtue, serenity is a virtue for the benefit of an audience. (To refer again to the animal kingdom, we cannot really begin to admire a serene animal that we have never actually seen, or felt the presence of. Such as, with the apparently intrinsic, splendidly-serene solitude of a large eagle.) Serenity is notable for the way it gains the attention by a variety of people. We really do need to ask: why this is?

Knowing ourselves:

It has been recommended that people begin to know themselves since the time of the Ancient Greeks, or perhaps even earlier, in the terms of Buddhism. Here, discussing methods of knowing might involve us in some philosophical inquiry, as well as psychological inquiry. Wicklund, in a surprisingly sceptical book about self-knowledge and self-awareness, provides an ironic title, The Self Knower: The Hero Under Control, p. 53, and suggesting, "And as it turns out, humans do not have access to a universal language of inner states or dispositions."
Robert A. Wicklund and Martina Eckert, The Self-Knower: A Hero Under Control. New York, Plenum Press, 1992.

This is so, especially concerning three extreme states, the condition of infancy, the ineffable states experienced by mystics, and the depths of various forms of madness, including the despair of suicide.

There are states of mind and being which are completely inexpressible in words, though they are partly understandable in terms of actions. In respect of serenity, the state of mind to work on is the ineffable state of the mystic, with an aim, simply, of making it less ineffable, more discussable, and more easily sharable. This will not be possible without an expansion of our vocabulary.

If serenity was fully understood, as it might be seen in various cultures, it would be untrue that we do not have a universal language regarding inner states and dispositions. Yet serenity seems to be perceived widely, within many cultures, as an admirable quality, and it is perhaps the admiration of serenity which is universal. Serenity, we feel, can be felt from within the person possessing it.

Or, could we say, the serene person is engaged in animating a quality of serenity, and doing this with apparent ease. What is this quality, serenity?

Might serenity also be - the ability to appear as appropriately concerned when trouble arises, to take appropriate action, and then to retire into serenity when the need for action ceases?

Note: Wicklund and Eckert point out that a self-knower is a type of person, someone who has "allegedly" gained insight or a cognitive view into the self. Their self is no longer a mystery to them, they can "communicate with clarity about the inner workings and components of their own being".

But, "is a self-knower for once and for all a self-knower?" Another question is: is the separation of self and knowledge of self cast aside by theorists of self-knowing?
Wicklund and Eckert, pp. 15-17.

They also ask, why is it so commonly found with psychology, that blending and confusion accompany psychologists' attempts to separate issues of self from those of self-knowledge? (They here make an awkward point: do not confuse strength of impulse, even to altruism, with depth of self-knowledge.) Blurring of such matters, they say, is "largely responsible" for the non-scientific character of self-knowledge theory in psychology.

They also suggest (p. 148), that a self-knowing person (who has reduced self-esteem due to engagement in certain behavioural patterns in the past) may have a tendency to self-criticism which gives their observer (some theorist of self-knowing) an upper hand in interactions.

This self-knowing person (with reduced self-esteem) may be eager to adopt "correct" modes of behaviour or thinking, leading in the view of their observer, that they are now more mature, intelligent, or even autonomous.

We also have as a Wicklund-Eckert conclusion, - the self-knowing person demands of themselves that they shall possess a certain set of qualities, according to criteria which are given out by a theorist of the methods of self-knowledge. Here, fitness to the criteria equates to goodness, independently of the source of type of values inherent in the criteria. (Wicklund-Eckert suggest, (p. 50), the content of the self is separate from the dimension of knowing the self.

Here, philosophically, is a problem for the enhancement of serenity. There is a distinction between knowing and being, more so when the being (the self?) tries to know the self (the self?).

When I say, to you, or just to myself, "I am angry with myself", who creates the problem? Who solves it? Exactly who is being angry with whom, or what? Which part of me is objective and simply sits apart, observing me experiencing of an angry emotion?

This philosophical problem is embedded in common language and expressions, so deeply, many of us never notice it is there. (This question gets even worse if you ask, which part of you watches a dream you have while asleep, a dream in which you are also an actor?)

Here is one of the most important limits or boundaries needing to be discussed - for we notice that the serene person can move in an action-orientated way when trouble arises, influence others, and then retires gracefully back into serenity.

This view however seems to contradict dictionary definitions of serenity as tranquillity, where serenity is synonymous with serenity. But tranquillity is not an action-orientated state of mind, nor does the person in a state or mood of tranquillity usually actively seek to influence others in an effective way. A useful definition of serenity then, can suggest that serenity can be maintained during an action-time, or a time of trouble, which is the opposite of tranquillity.

There is a way out, however, via the word, tranquilo, "a musical direction", where the reference to music implies also an arrangement of some kind. When we observe a serene person, we do not find they lack a sense of how to move, or at least, a knowledge of movement, though they might be quite still for a time. Perhaps, a serene person seems to typify a sense or a theory of goodness.

(In Wicklund-Eckert terms, this would mean they had learned ways of fitting various action-criteria).

Perhaps, a serene person also suggests to us that they have learned ways of seeing into their own self, that there occurs within them, an easy movement to the depths of their being and a return to the surface again - the surface being the area of immediate social interaction.

If so, this in turn would suggest that psychologically, the exercise of the quality of serenity travels at least two ways - the serene person can travel deeply within themselves, more or less at will, while their exercise of this capability has an effect on people around them, in the wider, transpersonal field, in the social field - inward and outward.

This is also where the seeming quality of the action of serenity is observed. A truly serene person is of less social value when they are alone. Part of the value of the quality of serenity is that it has an effect on the people who notice it. For example, if I fear "looking inside myself" for some reason, or more likely, some set of reasons, and happen to notice that an apparently serene person, as from their words, can observe inside themselves with relative ease, I may well wonder: how on earth they are capable of this?

My curiosity may be aroused, if not my admiration; and also some of my own fear of myself, or my inner workings.

The point is, for fullest effect, the serene person needs an audience. This is not for reasons of individual ego gratification, this is because of the effect the serene person has on people around them. (Or as Ernest Hemingway wrote admiringly of Spanish matadors before stress-reduction became an industry, matadors can demonstrate "grace under pressure".)

Perhaps, you or I may fear that our personality, our "self", has unlikeable, or is inadequate or has disruptive potentials which might spoil our own life as well as others' lives?

There are few reasons why, in privacy, a serene person might not feel the same way, except that somehow, they have conquered the fear, or, the risk of making trouble. Self-mastery is thought to be an achievement. Here is the irony of Wicklund's subtitle: a hero under control.

Also, heroes need audiences. If there were no witnesses, there might really have been no heroic action at all? The irony of the very notion of self-mastery is that there is anything to be mastered, the very idea implies a lack of unity in the self. But of course, this is an irony which all humanity agrees will visit us, an irony which is anyway the seed of a great deal of humour. The serene person generally knows this full well, as to inner fears, also as to humour.

Wicklund-Eckert rather surprisingly, even to themselves, find that theories of the means of knowing the self can be inadequate. Such theories might also work well enough in one culture, but not in others, since any given theory of the means of acquiring self-knowledge is value-laden, and cultural values differ widely in various cultures.

The inadequacy of theories, however, do not remove some other implications about serenity, and in practice with the serene person, the inadequacy of any theory of self knowledge will be or can be hidden from view by the theatrical aspect of serenity, by its apparency, by its seeming quality.

We might find that in the serene person, there is a kind of tranquillity in the arrangement of elements of personality and self-presentation, and that this tranquillity in social groups can have the effect of changing circumstances.

As a quality, serenity is recognisable cross-culturally, whether it is possessed by an animal or a human being.

Where Wicklund observes that we lack a universal vocabulary for referring to inner states and dispositions, it seems, that a universal human admiration for serenity is the place where we have to begin... Serenity is a quality noted in all human cultures, admiringly. The problem is: that we are not told why this is so.

In serenity, then, there is a psychologically-interesting, action-orientated outlook and attitude to oneself as well as to others. Part of the "action" or the interest is an apparent merging or flux of subjectivity and objectivity.

This apparent merging, this apparent ability to engage the flux, arises chiefly from a long study of the placement of limits, if not from the transcending of limits.

We can also suggest that the exercise of serenity is partly theatrical, that there is a suggestion that limits on "normal" human behaviour can be transcended, and this also helps explain a great moral paradox of serenity that we can sometimes observe and wonder about, as in criminal courts - the apparent serenity of an evildoer. Here, regarding limits, we might mean: laws and reasons for them, customs, obligatory religious observances, dietary habits, the best means of educating the young, the limits of knowledge generally, the limits of the sayable.

There is a limit to how and where people can be educated... from such limits an individual can go further into some domain of self-discovery. As with territory, however, early discovery is not the same as knowing an area in full.

What gives rise to the apparency, the seeming aspect of serenity. It is mostly, that the serene person is an observer of change. Under the surface of things, change will occur, the serene person is sure.

They are curious as to what the change might be, or become, and privately, if troubling human affairs are under consideration, they are seeking confirmation of their particular theory of self-knowing, or looking for a way to improve their theory.

If any change takes place, it may take time, and will need to be watched, so the serene person will seem to be watching, waiting, while the ordinary demands of human interchange will require that this be done with something like style, with personality, with an exchange of humour, or advice from worldly wisdom, with a slight trace of theatrics.

The seeming aspect of being serene involves a slight talent for acting, but while the theatrical act is being performed, a good observer is behind the scenes, watching and waiting for change, in order to act "with right attention" at the appropriate time.

Have we succeeded in redefining serenity? Perhaps. The Serenity Prayer has an active orientation, the courage to change the things that we can. In the therapeutic context, the change may be in ourselves, more than in our external circumstances, but this doesn't effect the orientation-to-action within serenity as a quality. Serenity can be action-orientated as often as it implies stillness or tranquillity. If changes within oneself can be observed, and mean greater health, this is only another reason to remain self-interested in serenity.

The question arises: is serenity teachable? If serenity poses both philosophical and psychological questions, probably, yes. Many animal and human action-orientations are trainable, or educable.

With serenity, what is interesting is that it is a state which, by definition, is change-orientated, and the changes to be noticed are often occurring within boundaries that philosophy would see as residing in a grey area concerning plausible human perceptions of self-awareness, in an area where language can often fail because our customs of speech can confuse us about the differences between being (itself), our awareness of being (given that we are biological entities), and our objective knowing about being.

More so, where views on such differences in philosophical viewpoint actually become new reasons for actions, or topics for conversations, fresh confusions can arise.

(The fact that discussing serenity can involve as many purely philosophical questions about being, as it does, also helps explain the unsatisfyingness of so many contemporary titles available on self-help, new-age views on controlling one's destiny, therapy-cultism, and so on. These are books on emotions and happiness, not books on being and philosophy.)

Is serenity teachable?

If serenity were teachable, the following topics would prove interesting because if they do not fall into the area necessarily of the personal development of serenity, (which entails inspection of the inner self, that is, a theory of self-knowing), they fall into that social-theatrical, transpersonal zone where the serene person finds their audience, where the possession of serenity can be shown and inspected for what it is, or can be, or become.

(1) The Art of Listening: For example, why is it not taught in high schools? In the transpersonal field, active, skilled listening is one way to learn more quickly about the world beyond the individual self/family.

(2) Empathy: Buddhism has long recommended the development of compassion. Christianity emphasises love of one's neighbour. Islam recommends mercy. But as Wicklund-Eckert observe, we also lack a vocabulary for describing inner states and dispositions.

As a language, English lacks a wide vocabulary for discussing genuinely loving acts, feelings, views, impulses, outcomes, etc., though it does not lack a vocabulary of violence.

(If this seems an unusual thing to remark, discuss with anybody the deeper psychological value of actually possessing a particular virtue, and you will soon find yourself struggling for words, or resorting to quoting something printed, rather than fluently and confidently providing your own observations.)

(2a) The question of promoting the development of empathy could perhaps be taken up in terms of discussing new research on emotional intelligence.
Daniel Goleman, Emotional Intelligence: Why It Can Matter More Than IQ. London, Bloomsbury, 1996 edition.

Here, one might argue that if emotional intelligence is actually a discernible form of intelligence, then its distribution will vary within a population. Those who have less such intelligence, for whatever complex of reasons, will have their development of empathy retarded. If this is to be expected, it is in society's interest to promote the development of greater empathy in those demonstrating greatest possession of such intelligence. Emotional intelligence is now thought by some researchers to be of great importance anyway in the socialization of children.
Treatments on emotional intelligence as a topic in education, psychology and management is becoming increasingly important on the WWW. For a bibliography, see for example: http://trochin.human.cornell.edu/gallery/young/emotion.htm

On any spectrum of emotions from suicidal despair to joy, elation, given statistics on the likelihood of anyone suffering a psychiatric episode at least once in their life, could there, should there be a journal of the vocabulary of inner states? (In recent decades, stress management has become its own industry, providing much advice to sufferers).

Conclusions:

Serenity is an admired human quality because it allows the person possessing it to rapidly and skillfully cross and re-cross important psychological and philosophical boundaries whilst engaged in activities designed to quell forms of trouble, successfully, and with apparent ease.

This is precisely the reason, in the history of rulership, the formula phrase is used, "serene highness".

The words, "serene highness" imply, not always convincingly, that a ruler has a broad sense of justice, a sense of the fitness of laws, an appreciation of customs, an awareness of the potential turbulence of a population (read, "human nature"), sufficient self-confidence to remain in a public position, and also possessing discretion about revealing in public, the extent to which a regime might be relying simply on the strength of military command.

Serenity might appear in an individual after he or she has learned:
(1) What and where are the limits? Can or should they be breached, transcended or moved?
(2) Why they are there? Whether and/or why they can or do act more on the interior life of the individual, or on/in the external circumstances of society?
(3) Often in a context of asking, what should happen next in society for a greater good, allied with an improved knowledge of the interiority of the self (improved self-knowledge).

Following this, serenity is partly in knowing what action to take, when, and why, or not, as circumstances change.

Serenity might well involve consideration of timeless values, but it is not necessarily about stillness, or disguised powerlessness, or helplessness.

Serenity is a self-aware, action-stillness orientation, as distinct from wisdom, which involves making moral choices about correct or best outcomes.

Possession of serenity also implies watchfulness, some knowledge of the maturation processes of human beings, possession of levels of healthy concern about the state of wider society, and in the context of therapeutic work, an astute appreciation of the value of personal and community mental health.

The possession and expression of serenity is not so much a gift of God as a - probably - painfully-gained achievement in a complex area of philosophical/psychological analysis about being.

This examination is conducted in zones of experience where human languages generally lack adequate vocabulary for ordinary usage, in a zone where the technical usages of words in philosophy and theology can be confusing, turgid, overly general, or simply misdirect attention from special care in human relationships to merely intellectualised conversation.

Wicklund and Eckert are quite correct about the existence of a major limit to the situations being addressed here, in their book, The Self Knower: The Hero Under Control, p. 53, "And as it turns out, humans do not have access to a universal language of inner states or dispositions."

What can be done? How will this universal language be developed and disseminated?

The lack of this language is a serious problem.

More so, with the entire world now supposed to be a global village fitted out with a fast-communication Internet and environments under threat, people are going to be asked to redefine all sorts of relationships.

A new view on how to deal with what in fact is the philosophy of being, in the context of developing serenity, and a more precise vocabulary for talking about such matters, will be both timely and helpful.

* * * * * * F * I * N * I * S * * * * * * *

Check website: Barbara Casagrande, anxiety consultant: http://www.serenitytoday.com/

Now return to the Index