I got this list from Alan Carr's Positive Psychology but there are some other internet resources with this list:

https://happyecho.com/fourteen-fundamentals/

There are also some charmingly retro videos on youtube:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rn9VFutue70&list=PL21CE9874EF13F791

Fordyce’s 14 fundamentals for happiness programme:

• Be more active and keep busy.
• Spend more time socialising and having quality time with other people
• Be productive at meaningful work and pastimes.
• Get better organised and plan things out so you accomplish one or two important tasks each day.
• Stop worrying because it is unpleasant and unproductive.
• Lower your expectations and aspirations, set achievable goals so you will be rewarded by your successes and will be disappointed less often.
• Develop positive, optimistic thinking.
• Get present oriented and live in the moment; don’t worry about past hurts or future catastrophes.
• Know yourself, accept yourself, like yourself, and help yourself.
• Develop an outgoing, social personality and spend time with people you enjoy, and meeting new people.
• Be yourself and do not disguise who you are, so you will attract people who like you for who you are.
• Let go of negative feelings and problems; don’t ruminate.
• Develop a close romantic relationship.
• Value happiness and pursue it with vigor.

This is great information. I'd hope there is wisdom in recent literature that compliments/improves on earlier ideas. I'm also wary of misinterpretations. Would be great to have your thoughts on the following.

Positive psychology seems to be applying a more rigourous approach to the study of happiness. Underlying the research seems to be surveys. In serveys a lot of subtelty can be lost. For example is a happy person scoring strongly on all 14 points or are some of the happiest scoring strongly on just some of the points, are some of the points strongly correlated, are there correlations within the population of sub-groups etc.

Any list of points like this has to put within a context. For example if sampling across diverse cultures then results would risk to be misleading - a hunter gather culture in the amazonian is going to have different priorities to the average New Yorker. Do you know what that context is in this case ?

The list seems full of contradictions:

* stop worrying because it is unproductive and be productive at meaningful work
* plan things out and don't worry about future catastrophes
* know yourself and don't worry about past hurts 
* pursue happiness with vigor and live in the moment
* be productive in pastimes
* be optimistic and be present minded
etc

Overall the list feels like what you might get if you asked the western middle class in a developed society whether they are happy and why they think they are happy. It seems to show a bias toward efficiency as being inherently good and a bunch of compromises that are impossible to balance because of their contradictory nature.

I've been reading a bit from the Stoics and the ancient concept of Eudaimonia seems a good substitute for happiness in regards to this type of discussion. One of the insights of looking at different religions and philosophies is that Eudaimonia is contextual. A happy Stoic is not the same as a happy Cynic etc. So I'm not sure a list without a philosophical context makes any sense - it can still be useful inspiration. Is there an explicit philosophical framework that comes with that list ?

I'm very wary of western psychology because it has still not integrated the insights of contemplative traditions. There is typically an assumption in the west that the subjective experience itself is not modifiable - we focus on changing behavior to optimize the expereince. There are some signs of movement e.g. MBST and MBCT but these are not aiming at the radical types of changes anyone with significant meditative experience knows are possible.

Are you familiar with Integral Life Practise ?

From Stoicism a few points stand out so far:

* spend most (not all) your time in the present
* worry only about that which is within your control
* only your decisions are within your control
* happiness is being of good character (making virtuous decisions)

The implications of that position regarding the list would allow happiness without being busy, without socializing, without being productive, without accomplishing things, without being optimisitc, without being outgoing, without a close relationship. Seems a lot easier Of course it does not exclude those things it just does not rely on them for happiness.

You have to be careful because this list is just one form of Positive Psychology. It's such a huge area that many books are as thick as textbooks. I also posted on Savouring which is another area that is rich with conventional pleasure that many Westerners ignore despite how conventional it is. They often ignore savouring due to habits of killjoy thinking.

http://www.dharmaoverground.org/web/guest/discussion/-/message_boards/message/5665220

One of the great things I learned about modern psychology and contemplative practice is that there are many forms of happiness. I'm kind of posting things as I go along instead of just posting everything in one go. I actually don't see contradictions in the list and find that many parts reinforce each other, but I do see what you're talking about with Stoicism. It's true that pursuing those 14 links means you probably won't achieve all of them and that can be a form of stress that Stoicism and Buddhism can address. In positive psychology they are aware of this and often include contemplative practice and admit that few humans can actualize everything on this list. The great thing about checklists is that it's a reminder to see if there are opportunities missed we can move forward on. 

To me there is Conventional Happiness and then there is Unconventional Happiness that Stoicism and Buddhism go into. Even further I can see that both can be pursued and it would be advisable to pursue both. We often have to make many attempts and go through failures before we can achieve those conventional goals and the Unconventional Happiness can support a person's resilience while they pursue goals. To me this might be the test for Spiritual Bypassing is if people forego the conventional for the unconventional because they are afraid of failure and not because they are enlightened.

Another area of stress is pursuing a close relationship. Of course when it works out then it's rewarding but quite the opposite if it doesn't. I have seen many, many examples of failed relationships due to personality disorders (especially Narcissism and Paranoia).  That's why studying the supporting conditions for good relationships is important instead of just pursuing a close relationship for the sake of it. 

http://www.dharmaoverground.org/web/guest/discussion/-/message_boards/message/5665220

Getting things done is another area that is hard to perfect but if pursued can relieve ruminating because if you put things behind you and actually solve solvable problems the brain does respond with relief.

http://www.dharmaoverground.org/web/guest/discussion/-/message_boards/message/5036272

Again a person could feel daunted at the area of tools available but the right attitude is to be happy there are so many tools for different personalities and simply adding some to your life (the ones that resonate with you) is a good thing.

The one glaring area that I think is missing from Fordyce's list is exercise and eating well. Some people do this so well that they don't need meditation and are quite resilient because they are so full of happy chemicals and well being. I'm now eating superfoods which I didn't even know about before and finding increasing energy from that. Of course meditation reduces stress which increases the feeling that one has more energy, because excess coritsol makes one feel tired.

Another area is existentialism and the burden of limited choices. Viktor Frankl earlier on in my philosophy explorations created some relief for me with his book Man's Search for Meaning. With logotherapy one can remind oneself of the meaning of one's actions. This can create new preferences where none existed in the past by simply looking for meaning in the first place.

http://www.dharmaoverground.org/web/guest/discussion/-/message_boards/message/3132895

I think to avoid being drowned in tools one has to pick some and develop them until they are habits and the move on to other tools as they get more refined.

Hi Richard,

Savouring is a great link, thanks. I guess this and Positive Psychology might fit under Human Potential Movement.

I see a lot of value to having a framework to place these various views. The best I've been able to find in Integral Theory from Ken Wilber. But I struggled for a long time to really "buy" into it. There is something daunting about anything that claims to explain everything Sort of what keeps me away from religion!

Are you familiar with Integral Theory and are you aware of other frameworks that cover that ground ?

Cheers.

No I just did a quick glance at it. I have some resistance to a theory of everything because I'm so eclectic but I think we all have to have our own theory of everything so we can guide ourselves to our deeper values. I'm sure dealing with contradictions is a big part of that because no theory is going to get everything right and it can go into stress again if with attach to it. Those theories will shift and change.

I tend to like the checklist approach and then to use as reminders and to try and include what I can because it's so hard to apply everything. Every subject (like savouring) can be zoomed into for more detail. For example each application of the Integral Theory can probably zoom into more detail with sub-subjects to a dizzying amount of detail for the ordinary person.

One thing I've noticed is that many checklists and lists of things to do from different systems can dovetail each other and through simplification can be amalgamated. Eg. Enneagram and Myers-Briggs. Western non-duality and Eastern non-duality. There are differences but similarities to the point that it's like comparing pyramids in the east to pyramids in the west. Different versions of the same thing.

...and then there's the Desiderata...

Go placidly amid the noise and the haste, and remember what peace there may be in silence. As far as possible, without surrender, be on good terms with all persons.Speak your truth quietly and clearly; and listen to others, even to the dull and the ignorant; they too have their story.Avoid loud and aggressive persons; they are vexatious to the spirit. If you compare yourself with others, you may become vain or bitter, for always there will be greater and lesser persons than yourself.Enjoy your achievements as well as your plans. Keep interested in your own career, however humble; it is a real possession in the changing fortunes of time.Exercise caution in your business affairs, for the world is full of trickery. But let this not blind you to what virtue there is; many persons strive for high ideals, and everywhere life is full of heroism.Be yourself. Especially, do not feign affection. Neither be cynical about love; for in the face of all aridity and disenchantment, it is as perennial as the grass.Take kindly the counsel of the years, gracefully surrendering the things of youth.Nurture strength of spirit to shield you in sudden misfortune. But do not distress yourself with dark imaginings. Many fears are born of fatigue and loneliness.Beyond a wholesome discipline, be gentle with yourself. You are a child of the universe no less than the trees and the stars; you have a right to be here. And whether or not it is clear to you, no doubt the universe is unfolding as it should. Therefore be at peace with God, whatever you conceive Him to be. And whatever your labors and aspirations, in the noisy confusion of life, keep peace in your soul. With all its sham, drudgery and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be cheerful. Strive to be happy.

Max Ehrmann, "Desiderata

There is something threatening about a theory of everything. I think I was worried I might lose a criticial vantage point. There is something dangerous about really listening to someone else's ideas - you need to take the idea on to really understand it and maybe you will not be able to shake it off afterward!

I agree we all have a theory (typically not conscious) and the theory is typically irrational. Perhaps the real genious of Wilber is simply being able to express something coherent. Personally I don't buy into all his assumptions and I think that made it easier to take a lot from it. Unfortauntely he is not very open about what the assumptions are, so it can take some effort and presents something of a chicken-egg situation.

Integral Theory is more like a meta-theory than a theory itself. So for example it can dovetail Eg. Enneagram and Myers-Briggs. Western non-duality and Eastern non-duality. It makes it much easier to see the short comings of other frameworks, for example he recently published "The Fourth Turning Imagining the Evolution of an Integral Buddhism" I have not read the book but read some summaries and it made a lot of sense (but you need to hold separate the questions about how "confident" you'd need to be to publish a book with that title)

I'd highly suggest reading about the AQAL model. It should help fit various things together more easily. Wilber has done a titanesque job in proposing something that can then be critically investigated.

Yeah, I like Ken Wilbur, although I'm not a true believer.  I think the underlying reasoning behind integral theory is the most important aspect of it.

 He says that on every level and every dimension of existence, things can be explained in terms of holons.  Meaning, there are always smaller units that come together to create a bigger unit (i.e. atoms->cells->molecules... person->household->neighborhood->city.... individual concept->containing doctrine->overall philisophical theory).  He calls this a holarchy, which is distinct from a heirarchy in that it does not posit that increasing complexity implies increased value.  

Another poignant aspect is that he seeks to link up theories and sciences that explain the internal world with those that explain the external world.  He does this by dividing things up into quadrants.  1st person inner experience.  1st person outer manifestion.  Collective (2nd or 3rd person) inner experience (i.e. cultural concepts).  Collective outer manifestation (i.e. customs, structures, etc.).  

in example: A person experiences a thought on the inside.  That thought manifests as a change in their brain chemistry.  The collective conceptual language of a given culture allows that person's mental talk in the first place and gives that person a framework to organize their thoughts.  That persons thought may be visible as subtle facial shifts or may become expressed into vocal words.

Holons can be found moving progressively outward in each quadrant.  As Holons progress past a certain degree of advancement, they move that aspect of a given culture into its next stage of evolution (i.e. we have moved past mythic/shamanic levels into hunter-gathering and then agrarian and then industrial and now early informational).  Ken Wilbut argues that in certain areas, such as collective material science (4th quadrant), we are obviously an early informational society.  However, in other quadrants such as collective internal, we are spiritually a post-mythic society (I forget what stage of society Christianity forges) at best.  So, the goal is beyond 1st quadrant progress, which many of us are very good at, and into collective spiritual understanding (which we are actually doing here on the DHO).
______________

So, for me, its not as if he truly has the answer for everything, but the vision that all things, both in the inner world of man and the outer world of nature and man, are within one big container called "reality", is significant.

There is also the lines, levels, states & types. The lines or "intelligences" raises questions about what is being impacted by meditation. The states vs stages also seems very relevant to practise.The wiki entry is pretty good https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ken_Wilber#AQAL:_.22All_Quadrants_All_Levels.22

so..what do you think about rupert sheldrake's thesis  of 'morphic resonance'?  life has restarted several times on this planet and it seems to follow the same developmental track..from less to more complex organisms.  could there be an unseen, unheard, possible unmeasureable aetheric field which already has the 'template of perfection' to which all all organisms 'aspire' or move towards? could the vaccuum of existence be pulling all sentient beings in the same direction? i think that in the simplified description of 'evolution' which most people bow to leaves a vast space of possibility open with the concept of 'random action'. can't prove it of course.

I'm not familiar with it but there is plenty of evidence that evolution uses and reuses patterns. cellular automata are an interesting case in point - very simple structures that can give rise to extremely complex patterns. so maybe evolution is good at finding the equivalent in biological systems. I don't buy into the idea that there is any goal or tendency to increasing intelligence. a tendency to complexity yes but we could easily head back to repeat the age of dinosaurs if the environment pushes in that direction!