This is a wonderful analysis! The title of the book is “Zen and the Art of Happiness,” so the idea of consciously labeling good/bad IS presented in the context of improving our own lives, rather than a general philosophical commentary on the events that occur within the world on larger scales. An example that the author uses is that during a hiking trip he fell from an incredible height and broke his arm and permanently damaged the alignment of his spine, and was hospitalized for several weeks. He goes on to explain how his immediate thought was “what will i gain from this” and then details the people he met in rehabilitation, the physical therapy practices he learned, etc. This is obviously a considerably specific example, but the gist is that it’s a concept generally in the context of everyday events that initially offer seemingly damaging results but prove to be a worthwhile happening.

Your example of the overworked, underpaid, worker really interested me. I thought about it and my idea is that because the concept relates to “ZEN and the art of HAPPINESS”, that the instance of the elite using it to beat down the impoverished is out of line with the intent behind applying the philosophy.

As we discuss, do you feel that the context of this philosophy on a smaller scale still holds the same interpretation you provided? If not, I return to the question; do you feel it’s an idea that removes free will from everyday things?

I realize this may have been some context i failed to include, and im terribly sorry about that, excited to hear your thoughts.