Welcome to the About Words website. Below is a brief audio introduction to this site.
Did you know that one of the most popular words on the internet is God?
Are you interested in improving your finances? How about dramatically increasing your investment returns and controlling risk (or even minimizing risk except for specific periods of peak opportunity in select markets)?
In the video below, I detail a few keys of the logical process that I have used to reliably forecast long-term and short-term fluctuations in investment markets. Below are also the images that I reference in the video. Clicks each image to see a bigger version. The bottom set of images has colors to highlight certain similarities in the charts and if you want to have the chance to see if you reach the same easy analysis that I do, listen to the video first before scrolling down to view that bottom set of images.
Also, I made passing reference to real estate markets in the video, and, as a little bonus, there is an extra chart below in the middle showing the last 3 months of prices for 3 funds that track US real estate markets. You will see that the patterns of those charts are highly consistent with the patterns in the markets which I discuss in the video.
US Real estate:
Here is the same sets of images as on top, but with certain similarities noted in color:
I have said on occasion that there are not many actual controversies in science. On occasion, there is a lack of sufficient data available to a particular group of people, so a controversy remains for them at that time (and so they throw around phraseslike “incurable”). However, for the most part, the controversies about science are political in nature.
Many scientists routinely ignore (or even “lose”) data that does not fit the commercial interests of their sponsor. Much of the anti-fat and anti-cholesterol hysteria that the FDA generated since the 1980s relies on very weak “research” that conspicuously excluded data that did not fit the “profitable” conclusion, so the “useful data” was included and the rest was “arbitrarily” left without mention in the published research.
Further, frivolous claims of causation (based on evidence only of correlation) are common. What is remarkable is not the occasional inaccurate speculation about causation, but the massive resistance that some “scientists” present to… science (when familiar assertions of causality are challenged by contrary data or even merely questioned).
I begin my “primary timeline” in the history of imperialism with the Hebrew Prophet Noah. I’m not saying that I cannot go much further back, because I can, but I can go that far back and still have lots of documentation to support my commentary. Most people either do not yet know the documentation that I am talking about (and can easily review it) or else they simply retreat from the conversation. (If I go back much further than Noah, then the documentation is there, but the content is so controversial to most mainstream “zombies” that I stick with Noah at least at first).
Noah declared to the Hebrews a seventh commandment that supplemented the six given to Adam. (This was long before Moses, which is as far back as most Christians have ever pondered, but again the documentation for what I am saying is very accessible and many Jews are quite aware of the sequence I am referencing.)
Do you know that seventh “Noahide” commandment? Note that it is not included in “the Ten Commandments.”
People sometimes use the term “Boogie Man” to refer to an invented threat. Perhaps Noah invoked the biggest boogie man of all- far bigger than just a military enemy or global warming or Ebola. Noah basically said that “this Seventh commandment must be satisfied ETERNALLY or else the human race will be punished by The Almighty with a cataclysm even worse than the recent flood [which was recent prior to this statement being made by Noah].”
That apocalyptic tone is the foundation of modern Judaism and the two biggest “branches of Judaism:” Christianity and Islam. Further, that tone is not really that far removed from the tone presented in certain popular versions of the story of the Garden of Eden.
Finally, the “innovative conceptual paradigm of Noah” was implemented in the various assassinations and slaughters led by Moses (and “rewarded by God”). Phinehas was rewarded with a political title of a priesthood for plunging a spear through two embraced lovers (shown in image above). The decapitated heads of disloyal Israelites were also placed on public display to “promote compliance” – see chapter 25 in the below image.
As for other rewards documented in the Old Testament book of Numbers, the Levites were also rewarded with virgin brides (including child brides) for their massacre of the Midianites. One notable verse is Numbers 31:17, shown in the image below:
HJ wrote: Those who have arguments with my words can argue with themselves.
My energy of attention is being moved toward those whose approach is childlike curiosity and willingness to see through the appearance of separate identities.
RRF replied: That sounds like a statement of separation to me.
HJ: Everything sounds like a statement of wholeness to me…living proof that separation never was!
“Separation never was” could be a statement of denial. It could be argumentative. “Now, let me explain why when I am argumentative, that is not actually argumentative….”
There is a spectrum of precision- from more to less. There are many spectrums.
Childlike curiosity may be very valuable for those who are “closed” in that regard. Beyond mere curiosity is focus, intensity, and courage.
Why is a child’s lack of perception of danger called naive? Because they lack perceptiveness. Only when one is perceptive and open to fear is courage possible. Curiosity leads so perceptiveness, which can be useful. However, I had a childlike curiosity as a child. There is a totally distinct context beyond “mere curiosity.”
Curiosity helps you to find the eye of the needle. To pass through it, curiosity is not enough.
Life is meant to be… whatever it is. I understand the functionality of an idea like “your life is meant to be calm, not distressed.” However, there may be an unexamined paradox in the post here:
“Free will and choice are only appearances…made up to be enjoyed. As soon as there is identification with a someone who has free will and makes choices, suffering ensues…because the entire focus of attention becomes about getting what’s wanted and avoiding what’s not wanted.
Life is meant to be easeful and joyful…a timeless dance with no dancer in particular.”
Does the activity of focusing on getting “whatever one focuses on getting” always produce suffering? Not at all. It is nonsense when stated so imprecisely. Of course… nonsense can also be useful…!
If we are trying to avoid something (such as to avoid suffering by focusing on how life was meant to be calm and joyful, but not hysterical or upset), then does that produce suffering? Yes- it could produce suffering… for the idea of “attempting to totally avoid suffering” is understandable but perhaps naive.
What if we accept that suffering might happen on occasion? What if we respect it and welcome it instead of being hysterical in a terror about possible future suffering and saying “I choose love over fear because love is better than fear and therefore I am never afraid?”
A lot of things that “spiritual people” say are hilarious. Some of them do not seem to like that idea. They “just do not get it” … Or not yet.
As for “identifying as a someone who has free will,” yes that CAN be the basis of agonizing and many related hysterias. However, the language of “I have free will” can be used without ANY of the hysteria or agonizing.
To [the author of the above post], if you have “reached the opening,” it is not evident to me in your words. Someone recently told me that they “had a serious problem.” I thought it might be more of a seriousness problem.
I recently labeled a few groups of people: naive fools (who have no idea of their naïveté), then arrogantly sincere cowards (who pretend or at least hope not to have any naïveté or fear or “anything negative” because of the depth of their terror), and then finally the courageous clowns. I personally have never met a naive fool myself, but I am sure that they exist because it says so in the holy book of the United Empires of the Surface of the Earth.
All humans begin completely naive. They believe what they are told- like about Santa Claus or US history or the idea of a living parasitic demon called cancer that can possess people and kill them.
As for the idea that there is a way to completely “cure” all naïveté, that may also be naive. Presumptions (and expectations) are part of cognitive functioning. Yes, they can lead to disappointment and so on- and eventually will- but that is only a problem for someone who is so unstable (such as economically unstable) that all expression of disappointment is deemed to be “life-threatening.”
We begin as naive fools. Then, some of us may notice that and so then try to fool other naive people in to believing that they are not ever naive (and maybe even never were).
In fact, we can get quite terrified that others may notice that we are naive, because then they might take advantage of us. We throw tantrums about other people’s naïveté. We could call those tantrums “hysteria” (Or even terror or shame or distress or panic or cowardice)… in contrast with the relaxed naïveté of the newborn or infant.
Finally, there is a stage of courage about the simple fact of naïveté. We can be attentive, but we can never cure humanity of naïveté, and any individual that can recognize patterns can on occasion be tricked (fooled, presumptively mistaken). We can be imprecise- but that is distinct from being so hysterically terrified that we construct sincere pretenses in order to attempt to deny any naïveté (or to distract from our own by pointing at someone else’s).
Note that it is also hysterical to say “I should have never been naive so how can I prevent all naivete in the future? It may be possible to withdraw from possible dangers toward safety- like turning off the TV or moving away from “the old gang.”
With courage, we can admit the simple reality of naïveté and admit our fears about being taken advantage of (plus our preferences for safety and prosperity and so on). While arrogant cowards are chanting their slogans about “saving the world from fear,” the courageous know that the cowards are simply avoiding their own shame about their own naïveté. They are distracting themselves from logic with their mantras of idealism.
With courage, we can be attentive to the contrasting possibilities of naïveté and prudence. We can be responsible for focusing on prudence and being cautious of naïveté.
She said “I just want a man who agrees with me already,
so I don’t have to think or ever learn anything.
Please just re-assure me that I don’t need to change.
cause my head’s still spinning from a thousand days of rage.”
“If you slip up, (then) I’ll try to get you embarrassed.
I’ll just use some guilt and then blackmail your compliance.
If I think you see through me, then of course I will flee
as I accuse you of anything I pretend that I’m not doing
some women say “don’t tell our secrets”
we want our men to stay old boys.”
(but don’t they say as years go by:
“I just want a real man!”)
he said “I’ll give you a man who doesn’t beg for approval
I know what I want so are you in or out, dear?
I don’t mind explaining… at least some of the time
But if you don’t trust me, then why are you here?
I admit I’ve been naive and it could happen again
but I just keep on learning until I win my game
I’m not running from the past or daydreaming of heaven
and I respect my fears for they forged my faith
I have on occasion stated to various people that their use of language was imprecise in some way that could easily be altered (easily from my perspective). On that note, the frequent references by “spiritual people” to the word “illusion” are notable. What if reality is an all-inclusive category (so that rather than having several realities, there is just one) and one subcategory of reality is called “imagination” and another aspect of reality is called “language?”
All sorts of “nonsense dilemmas” that people relate to as important are actually a learning process involving language. The word “choice” and the word “pre-determination” are just two different filters or angles. There is no “conflict” between verbal categories. They either overlap a little, not at all, a lot, or whatever….
What about “EITHER choice OR free will?”
In chemistry, we do not talk about free will. But I might say “I am causing my fingers to move and to type these words.” How? Through chemistry and physics and so on.
Quantum physicists may re-introduce verbal categories like “choose” when they talk about something that they cannot predict. Since they can predict chemical reactions, they can call those “pre-determined.” Since they cannot predict when a volcano will erupt, they may say “ah, well that is up to the gods to choose.”
“What about EITHER love OR fear?”
Fear and love could be two exclusive and opposing categories, but so what? Most “new age” people are operating in a hysteria of “anti-fear fear” in which they pretend not to be terrified and anxious. However, by “pretending to be calm,” they may in fact be taking actions that contribute to a result of relaxation and calm. Brilliant!
They are so terrified with fear that they freeze (rather than flee or fight) and then they may even fake (present an insincere kindness that is actually just being polite and trying to avoid humiliation and punishment).
The idea of “choosing not to have fear” sounds like paranoia and shame to me. Fear is just a word for a biological process involving a sudden shift in conscious alertness- like I hear the fire alarm go off, so I examine the situation and flee to safety then call 911 because I am afraid of my house burning down.
So, we are programmed with ideals about how life is and how life should be (or should not be). We are told things like how governments should be, which functions to blind us from how our own government might not be exactly “how governments should be.” However, the naive pupils still blindly believe that “our government USED TO BE perfect,” so they then think “who has ruined our government?” Then they argue amongst themselves for a few decades over how to protect our government from becoming how it should not be (assuming that it is not already that way).
The entire process is hysteria. Virtually all governments use propaganda to present themselves as a “kinder, gentler imperialism” – at least on occasion.
One of the most important points in the religion known as the USA is that it is not a religion. The USA’s rituals are not religious rituals.
“Either something is a religion or [else it must be] a ____, but never both!” Those kinds of “mutually exclusive” categorizations are optional.
In the spells cast by the sorcerers of the USA, their curses are not curses. When someone is possessed by a living entity called cancer which spreads through their body and eats them alive, that is not mythology. That is a scientific fact because demonic possession by cancer is a central idea of mainstream demon worshipers.
Here is a context in language that I could call “monotheism.” An almighty singularity branches out and names some of the branches “separate individuals.” Of course, within that context, the Almighty also creates a drama of various branches who argue with each other and all sorts of other fun things, like one persona blaming other persona for the first one’s experience.
In other words, some branches repel certain other branches. Some intertwine for a while and then stop intertwining.
Plus, the branches of the Almighty include hard things like tree branches, but also softer things like grape vines and even the flight paths of butterflies. Everything that happens is “God’s Will.”
Again, that includes all the folks saying “there is no God” and “no, there IS a God!” and “I blame the devil” and so on, including: “The individual identity is false and delusional.”
It could all be hilarious if the reality of language is clear. Otherwise, it could all be a terror of hysteria.
“But tell me WHO is responsible? You need to tell me because if I know anything, it is that I know that I am not speaking the language of responsibility… and it is all your fault, too! You are trying to guilt trip me, aren’t you?!?!?!”