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?
Language patterns of leaders and loyalists
Humans are social animals. Within human social groups, we can notice different patterns of action. Human infants will perform a certain range of actions, while older children other patterns of behavior, and then a variety of behavioral specializations can be developed amongst the adult males and adult females.
One relatively complex form of social organization is the empire. The essential requirement of an empire is that there is a contrast between the actions of the leaders and the actions of the followers.
One form of action is communication, including the use of language. In regard to how language can be used in different patterns, should we be surprised to learn that the leaders in an empire use language in ways that are distinct from the ways that the followers use language? For instance, do military officers speak to low-ranking personnel the same way that low-ranking personnel speak to each other?
One typical statement of the masses would be “that should not be like that.” They do not just make such a statement to calmly note a contrast between their preferences and their observations. The masses practice a religion of hysteria. The hysteria is based on a thin, anxious clinging to ideals of how life should be, how people should be, and, in particular, how they perceive themselves to be.
When one of the masses say “that should not be like that,” they may be expressing distress, embarrassment, or even outrage. In contrast, one of the leaders might calmly say “that should not be like that,” and they could simply mean “there is a difference between what I am observing here and what I expected,” as in “that not does not fit my standards.” Or, they may mean “if you do not conform to my standards, there will be no rewards and may even be punishments.”
If the leader has an ideal of how something should be, then they simply notice when that ideal is only partly matched or totally matched (or totally violated). Leaders also may present to the masses many ideals of how various things should be. The specific ideals presented will correspond to the leader’s interests as well as to their perceptions of their audience.
A leader may train the followers to learn an ideal and then present rewards for those who loyally repeat the ideal. Even larger rewards may be offered to those who conform to the ideal. Of course, punishments are also typical for those who do not conform to the behavioral ideal (including behavioral patterns of speaking).
So, after a follower learns an ideal from their leader (and expects rewards and punishment relative to their continued display of loyalty), then there may be some chronic physical tension for the follower in regard to one or more ideals. There may be a lingering trauma or terror.
If the follower is terrified of the possibility that a particular ideal might be inconsistent with reality, a sudden panic can result from an apparent disparity between the worshiped ideal and actual observations. Especially if other people are present to witness a possible disparity, then a variety of unusual behaviors are possible, including fight, flight, and pretense.
The terrified loyalist (loyal to the programmed ideal) may attempt to repel potential skeptics and dominate an interaction, including through methods of distraction. The curiosity of a skeptic, such as a child, may be targeted with animosity and condemnation.
If the loyalist perceives a potential threat, then they may attempt to humiliate those who are curious or skeptical (or even who show inadequate enthusiasm for the worshiped ideal). If they seem unable to intimidate a skeptic, then they may attempt to confuse any witnesses.
If you fail to display loyalty to an ideal that someone worships, what responses are predictable from a loyalist? If you show a type of attentiveness or curiosity that a loyalist interprets as a threat to their self-image, what responses are predictable from the loyalist? If you directly challenge the fragile self-image of a loyalist, what responses are predictable from the loyalist?
Does a leader rescue loyalists from their loyalties? Or, does a leader have respect for loyalty as well as for leadership?
Loyalty is the natural trait of followers. Within a social herd, there will always be some fanatical loyalists, some loyalists who are much more relaxed, and some leaders who are not terrified about whether or not ideals “should” be worshiped.
Some people may sometimes worship certain ideals. Leaders respect that. Leaders also respect that they may have some influence over which ideals are worshiped and how they are worshiped. Leaders are open to leading (to being followed).
To be a leader, it can be useful to have experience as a naive, terrified follower. It can be useful to understand the typical patterns of hysterical loyalist.
Some may react in a panic and shout that “there should not be so much hysteria.” I completely agree. There should be exactly the right amount of hysteria, and certainly no more and no less.
Add to this, where are all the phone pics of bloody victims? Africans all have phone cameras. We are a fully wireless world. If people were really dying of Ebola, it’s much worse than vomit and diarrhea….the link I posted earlier about the Ebola test (created by Nobel prize winner who describes it’s short comings) is hardly reliable….so….in the absence of actual evidence, the US is now doing a PR campaign to convince people? I would think dead people would be more than sufficient….unless they haven’t died from Ebola….
Most people (around 90% according to the research that I have read) have deficiencies of oxygen in their brain cells. This is very easy to resolve. There are many testimonials and research papers on the methods used and the results produced.
But if it is your intention to avoid health, then intention does matter. Most people are too terrified of learning something new to explore any established science that could result in the experience of humility.
aerobic exercise USES UP oxygen. That is why it is called aerobic. People may think that is always good, but if they do not replenish the oxygen, using up a lot of oxygen might not be as good as they hoped.
I assume that no one is really interested in the actual data because there is a lot of “yes, I already know all about that.” Really? Do you?
Maybe you already know all that you are already comfortable knowing.
I get that you do embrace things once you understand them. I just am clear that you do not understand certain things yet.
I bet you know the word hyperventilation but not the word hypoxia. Basically, the vast majority of people that we know have a brain that is usually starving for oxygen (because of chronic hyperventilation). Hypoxia means, basically, starving for oxygen.
Many people are familiar with acute hyperventilation (as in a “panic attack” or “asthma attack”). Chronic hyperventilation is typical in a modern population (over 90% of people experience chronic hypoxia).
Most of us breath about twice as much as would be considered “normal” or “healthy.” That “over-breathing” (such as “apnea”) causes CO2 levels in the bloodstream to collapse, which prevents the right amount of oxygen from getting out of the bloodstream and in to the cells.
That is… very bad. It is like a constant state of a mild panic attack… like a borderline panic (or anxiety / hysteria) that is always just a few seconds away from serious neurological chaos.
Concentration plunges. Anxiety and irritability rockets. Cognition “stalls.” In extreme cases of sleep apnea, oxygen levels get so low that the brain interrupts the sleep to wake up the organism so as to slow down the constant gasping (and keep the organism from dying).
These effects have been documented for a very long time, but in the US the health care business is not set up to promote health inexpensively. Government regulations protect the immense profit of the “disease management” industry from the threat of inexpensive methods to promote health.
The solution to chronic hyperventilation & hypoxia is simply to slow down breathing. There are a variety of devices (such as masks) and exercises to assist, but they all slow down the breath (to increase CO2 levels in the blood and thus increase O2 levels in the cells).
Mr. Humility himself
It is easy enough to breath instead “in to the stomach” or even to “fill” both the stomach and the chest. However, if that is done rapidly, that only makes the symptoms of the hyperventilation more severe than with the more “shallow” breathing of the chest only.
“Chest breathing is the mechanical ramification of over breathing. Breathslim [a fancy $30 "brown paper bag"] strengthens your belly breathing muscles so effectively that most patients are able to reverse years of habitual chest breathing within a month.”
You see the exact same thing amongst the AV [Aajonus Vanderplanitz] “ultra-loyalists.” Most people are so hampered by social hysterias that it compromises their cognitive capacity to recognize simple principles.
I occasionally present a “conspiracy theorist” idea that the elite (or CIA, KGB, etc) plan that mainstream medicine be regulated in a way that keeps the health of the masses within a certain range- not too low and not too high. However, the conspiracy aspect is mostly trivia. What matters most is how to improve health. For some people, to vent contempt and rage is also healthy, so in those cases it can be more relevant to reference conspiracy theories amongst select audiences.
I do not think that AV was a CIA “asset.” I think he was sincere and just unaware of certain principles of physics. He observed amazing results in numerous cases and may not have known why the same methods worked differently in different cases.
However, his lack of attention to language or apparent lack of emotional development in regard to not taking political wars so personally was a drawback. I think he was sincere and insightful within his specialization.
Jack Kruse, MD (who is in one of the videos above) did a demonstration to show how the ketogenic diet enthusiasts are too focused on diet and not enough on health, in his opinion. He had two periods of time in which he had the exact same diet (like for several months) along with no change in exercise, but he intentionally varied the CO2 in his bloodstream for long periods of time.
The difference was that with hypoxia (too little oxygen from too much CO2), he gained significant weight. Diet is not the only determinant of metabolism. Jack is also famous for manipulating metabolism through things like cold, lgiht, and EMFs (like from wifi and cell phones). He has a tendency to use language “inefficiently”, but he his is “a real scientist” and a holist. He’s very excited about what he is in to and naturally there are other issues which he seems not to be as familiar with.
Anyway, metabolism and mitochondrial efficiency are a big deal, but diet is not the only factor. If the energy available form diet cannot be used, it is like having a battery available but not being plugged in to it (disconnected).
For people with horrible diets, it makes sense to transitionally focus on improving diet, but that does not exclude other influences. The spirit of exploration and experimentation tends to result in learning. We can all relate to that, right?
Bob wrote that “Ebola is a hoax.” He was joking. He was making fun of hysteria.
Ebola is not a hoax. It is a real river in Africa. In the 1970s, some people died in the area near that river and then the way they died was named after the Ebola river.
Since then, an average of about one hundred people per year have died from the medical process called “Ebola” (at least that is what has been reported and publicized). Is that a lot of people? It is a lot more than a dozen, right?
I have seen reports showing that around 20,000 people commit suicide each year in the US. If you do not stop what you are doing right now to donate a few hours of your time every week to a campaign for suicide awareness & prevention, then you are probably… an American.
But back to the disease process called Ebola, it can allegedly be spread through very limited ways, like involving certain bodily fluids. In that respect, it is similar to the HIV virus & the medical label “A.I.D.S.”
But should people ever be skeptical of new information? What about skeptical of old, familiar presumptions?
I recently read medical research from 1991 establishing that simple breathing exercises were 100% effective in promoting the health (reducing the symptoms) of people with HIV/ AIDS. The same kind of exercises have “cured” people of asthma and panic attacks and many other diagnostic labels.
What is asthma? It is a process involving hyperventilation and a lack of oxygen in the brain cells.
In fact, when there is a lack of oxygen in brain cells, then that interferes with the brain’s ability to generate electromagnetic current (“energy”). So, there are a few consequences of a “starving” brain and also a few mechanisms for remedying that.
If someone is underwater with no oxygen-rich air to breathe, that could be a problem. However, the more common problem in modern medical contexts is that 90% of people do not have “enough” carbon dioxide in the bloodstream (from too much breathing AKA “mild” hyperventilation). I speculate that it is because they are chronically stressed/ tense/ scared/ traumatized/ zombified.
How is the “behavior” of asthma replaced with the behavior of “healthy breathing?” There are some simple exercises to gradually strengthen certain muscles and to slow down the breathing enough to raise the CO2 levels in the bloodstream. (Check out http://www.intellectbreathing.com or http://www.normalbreathing.com for more info.)
Since 90% of people that were measured have been observed to breath at least twice as heavily as would be considered healthy or “normal,” that percentage is far too high (relative to the tiny fraction of people with HIV) to then say that HIV causes mild hyperventilation or that mild hyperventilation causes infecton by HIV. However, if all of the symptoms that are called AIDS disappear because of a simple short breathing exercise, then we can conceive of AIDS as one type of complication of mild hyperventilation (among many others).
As long as somone has adequate oxygen levels in the brain, what if the presence of the HIV virus itself has NO MEDICAL CONSEQUENCE? When oxygenation of brain cells is too low, there are a variety of problems- from mild to severe. However, because of the worship of diagnostic labels like AIDS and Ebola by the western masses, they may panic at the sound of those words. They do not conserve their breath. They do not keep calm.
So, when millions or billions of people have low oxygen levels in their brains, then isn’t it obvious that they make demons out of words? They worship AIDS like it is a living demon that possesses organisms and causes illness or death. Is that true? Or, is HIV just one of many viruses that, when an organism’s cells are starving for oxygen due to mild hyperventilation, the presence of the virus can complicate the already compromised health of that organism (such as by produing the EFFECT labeled as A.I.D.S.)?
(Note that the most well-established method for promoting health is called “the placebo effect,” which is basically a reference to any method of tricking a patient in to relaxing their normal level of distress/ hyperventilation. Why doesn’t the placebo effect work in every case? Because some people are not actively sabotaging their immune system with unconscious habits of compromised breathing.)
Here is where we start to get to some interesting issues involving language. People tend to think that there are fundamentally distinct realities, like the reality of carbon and the reality of oxygen. That is absolutely false.
Carbon can change in to something else. “Brain-dead chemists” may be unaware of physics, but it is still common knowledge amongst nuclear physicists that carbon is a relatively stable compound. By compound, I mean that it is made of smaller components.
“Carbon fusion” is the name for the process of carbon combining with hydrogen to form nitrogren. Nitrogen is not a carbohydrate made of some atoms of cabron and some atoms of hydrogen. When nitrogen is created out of carbon and hydrogen, the two stable compounds that were present at first are later absent. They transform in to a new form (creating a new compound through a significant re-organizing of the components of the two prior compounds).
First, there are two distinct stable fields of energy (forms of energetic matter) called carbon and of hydrogen. Then, the two distinct fields (compounds) “fuse” to make a new field (compound form) that displays certain qualities which chemists like to label as “nitrogen.”
So, nitrogen is just a label for one distinct stable pattern of… energy. By the way, the pattern of Nitrogen can shift to Oxygen, then back to Nitrogen, then back once again to Carbon.
Next, where does most hydrogen on the earth come from? From solar radiation. Because we think of waves and particles as two isolated realities, we can get confused about the radiating of hydrogen, but that is actually kind of odd that it would be confusing.
Let’s simplify. Waves and particles can be thought of as two distinct types of behaviors.
Carbon and oxygen can be thought of as a two stable patterns of energy. If you add a certain kind of energy to carbon in a certain way, then the new pattern is called nitrogen.
In other words, there is nothing fundamental or eternal about the pattern of energy behaving as carbon. Carbon is just relatively stable (and Carbon-13 is distinct from Carbon-14 in part because one is more stable than the other).
Those two types of carbon decompose at different speeds (with different half-lives). By decompose, we mean to say that they are composites. They are compounds. They are stable compounds made of stable sub-atomic fields of energy (such as electrons, neutrons, and protons).
Matter is an aspect of these energetic fields (which are sometimes referenced as “particles”). Matter is not independent of energy (not a distinct isolated reality).
Mass refers to the amount of attractive energy (gravitational force) created by a certain field. So, we can measure the mass of an energetic field (such as an electron “particle” or an atom of Carbon or a molecule of Carbon Dioxide).
Mass is once again not a fundamental reality. Mass is an effect. Mass is even a process or “behavior” (as in an effect that causes other effects).
Let’s briefly address the issue of “particles” appearing and disappearing. For instance, when neutrinos and anti-neutrinos “appear and disappear,” that is because they are unstable fields (unstable patterns of behavior).
Carbon (such as “carbon-12″) is a much more stable field. So, carbon-12, carbon-13, and carbon-14 are similar but distinct aggregates of energy. They have similar yet distinct properties. For instance, the property of mass (or material stability) is slightly different for carbon-12, carbon-13, and carbon-14.
Again, mass is just a property of lasting energetic fields. Some energetic fields can last for a decade (if not disrupted) and other types of fields would never last for an entire second because they are so unstable.
All that finally brings me back to carbon dioxide. That is a label for a molecular compound made of one part carbon and two parts oxygen.
In other words, carbon dioxide always contains oxygen. They are not fundamentally distinct realities. The conceptual model of distinct realities is in fact hysterical (as in unintelligent or delirious).
There are a variety of dimensions, such as length, height, weight, density, temperature, and so on. There are also a variety of distinct perspectives, such as physics and anatomy.
When a biophysicist looks at living tissue, they might note “there is a pH of 6.94 in that tissue, which of course totally impairs the tissue’s ability to utilize oxygen because the electrons that are needed in order to form new electromagnetic valance bonds are too strongly attracted to the excess of protons (which we have measured to be excessive at the precise level known as a pH of 6.94).” That is a valid interpretation. That is very measurable. Every part of that statement can be tested for accuracy.
When someone who is not very competent in physics but very familiar with anatomy looks at the same tissue, they might say “that is a cancer tumor.” That is also a valid interpretation. However, it lacks the precision of the statement of the physicist.
If someone were to translate all of that in to a few different languages, all of that could still be valid constructions in language. They could all be useful in some way.
Every perspective is also limited. One perspective may be concise but vague. Another perspective may be precise in one aspect but misses a lot from the bigger picture.
The interpretation that produces the most profit for a business may not be the interpretation that promotes health with great efficiency. Each perspective naturally creates interpretations (and mesaurements) that are in accord with the motives and presumptions of that perspective.
Modern medicine is reasonably effective at identifying various kinds of symptoms through precise testing. One possible problem with modern medicine is the low level of competence in the science of physiology. (Most MDs will be not just ignorant but confused by why a certain biochemical effect will happen 90% of the time but not the other 10%.)
If they simply did not know, that would be mere ignorance. However, if they thought that they knew something (something which observations were clearly contradicting), that misperception or misinterpretation produces confusion. That is precisely what happens that often leads to hysterical arguing: “Your little theory that cholesterol is made by the liver to promote health is insulting because it contradicts my vilification of cholesterol as a demon that must be worshiped with attention and then ritually attacked.”
An MD may experience confusion, shame about the confusion, and then hysteria. What appears simple to a physicist may be a mystery to an MD- or even confusing and threatening. Since biochemistry is really just a specific subcategory of physics, a physicist may look at the same data (or same patient) and instantly recognize what is “really” going on. An MD may be “blinded” by their conceptual model of worshiping cholesterol as a demon.
So, in addition to the issue of incompetence in physiology amongst the medical priesthoods, there is also the related issue of arrogant hysteria. They may be distressed at the idea of learning something new, especially if it contrary to some religious dogma that they have believed and also have publicized for decades (sincerely but inaccurately).
When a person says “that effect is incurable,” they may mean that they are ignorant of how to stop producing that effect. However, most MDs do not even relate to diagnostic labels as effects. They may presumptively relate to certain diagnostic labels as causes. That simple error can lead to a lot of confusion, a lot of embarrassment, and, eventually, a lot of learning.
Lisa started by sharing this image. After a few other comments, I added the one below and the rest of the conversation is shown after that.
J R Fibonacci Hunn re [what Lisa wrote;] “We are supposed to have a representative political system for “expediency” to work on behalf of the common good…when it’s operating according to design, it’s the best collective political system out there.”
Don’t all political systems advertise themselves as “being for the common good?” Noah invented coercive systems with the specific design of a worldwide single government. Why? To save humanity from the threat of another apocalypse by an insecure God?
Moses ordered the slaughter and rape of the Midianites. Why? Because their women had been tempting the men of the Hebrew tribes, so that was their punishment.
(Feel free to correct me if you think that I misquoted the books of Exodus or Numbers in any significant way.)
Clinton Wensley Most people see only what they want to Believe . . . for the simple reason that they wouldn’t be capable of seeing or comprehending or wrapping their brain around what is actually going on.
In 1998, I had the privilege of meeting a man who was a dear friend of my girlfriend at the time … he came over for dinner one night with his wife… and we all had a nice dinner together.
After, we stated talking about world events, and the conversation eventually drifted to his former work (he was 55 yrs old, & retired)…. to make a long story short, this man was one of the nicest people I have met to date, and my girlfriend thought the world of him (he and his wife took care of her before I came into the picture, as my girlfriend was trying to recover from cancer)
This guy worked for a group of people that were above US Gov’t (probably in Europe) … and not even he knew exactly who his employer was by name. He told me things that made my hair stand up on end regarding politics, space, Medical, ET’s, etc… stuff that people think is conspiracy, but is actually going on in plane site …. as well as told me some things that would be going on in years to come (and they are happening as we speak).
He explained that he and his wife have to move 1-2 x’s every year, as there have been several attempts on his life (one that happened in a restaurant in Japan, where his best friend died in front of him) It was a lot to take in at the time.. and rearranged every thing that I thought I knew about the world, and what was going on.
Forget what you see and hear on the news if you trying to figure it all out … for its only 10% of the Truth…. and even if you were told the Truth, you’d dismiss it, and say, “that’s impossible, that was in a movie, that can’t be true” !!
I for sure don’t know the entire picture … but, what I DO know for a fact is that 9/11 didn’t happen because of 19 kids armed with box cutters …. Oswald never shot kennedy (much less even fired a shot) ……. there have been to date at least 5 cures for cancer starting as far back as 1930 that aren’t shared with the public ……. and Obama is about as much in control of the US, as a president, as Charlie Sheen is with his addictions.
I DO admire Marianne’s letter though … she comes from the heart.
Nelson Mandela is a very famous communist but in the US we generally do not identify him as a communist or terrorist, but as a “freedom fighter.” Some will argue that he was only funded by communists, but if you research the communist political platform and what Mandela supported, are they identical or nearly so? Here he is (in 1990?) giving a classic communist “solidarity” gesture (in front of a flag with a classic Soviet communist symbol).
J R Fibonacci Hunn Some readers here may know Marianne W. as a champion of forgiveness. However, to me, she is not only naive but operates in condemnation and hysteria.
She judges plutocracy (if she is hysterically sincere as I expect) as “wrong.” She is disappointed. She is frustrated. She is guilty. (I could go on.)
J R Fibonacci Hunn What Marianne W. seems not to understand is repentance. Of course, that is rather off-the-subject. However, that issue is huge and the lack of repentance does not address her guilt (her guilt from “first world privilege” I presume) and that guilt is driving her guilty liberal perfectionism to save the world from people like Hillary Clinton.
The government of Mexico “disputes his claims.” They says that he is a variety of insulting things like a criminal tax evader. They send thugs to arrest him, to take his belongings, and to kill him in a public ritual of human sacrifice.
Jack says “come and get me because I am protected by the ink of the US Constitution, you buttfaces!” So, soon Jack is killed.
Then, the USA gets mad that Jack was killed. They send some cavalry in to “annex” Texas from Mexico by force. (Of course, they were planning to annex Mexico anyway and they recruited Jack to be sent to Texas to stir up a dispute and be a “victim” of the Mexican government so as to justify a “retaliation” to “protect innocent settlers like Jack.”)
Then, some native american family whose forefathers have been living in the area for 900 years return from their summer vacation. The governments of Mexico and the USA flip out and say that these trespassers have a mental illness called “being an Apache” and send some more cavalry to protect the “innocent settlers” from the “bad people.”
There are big changes and small changes. There are trends.
Why are most people unable to state the foundation of demand for all currencies? Was this always the case?
No, it is the result of massive indoctrination programs called by such names as “public schooling” and “mainstream news.” The confusion and “scattered” disorientation of the masses is an economic target of certain commercial interests.
Why did gold make the much smaller and much less significant rise from $240 to $1950 (then plunge to $1200)? Again, it is no great mystery really.
Note the title of the article here: “worth it’s weight in… oil” In the title, I am making fun of those who worship gold and neglect the far more significant resource of oil (or of energy in general).
I already purchased one of group of option contrasts yesterday, those pertaining to the US Dollar Index (and the ETF “UUP”). I bought them for $25. I could sell them right now for $32 but I am holding them for the moment, though I might “dump” them at any time to “protect my profits.”
Do I personally care that I was trading contracts relating to gold or to a currency? Not at all. I am just a trader. I am not complaining about how the world should not be how it is and picking favorites from some utopian worship of an ideal or a sacred document of a religion, such as the U.S. Constitution.
I could be buying cigarettes at wholsesale prices and selling them for a big retail profit. Or it could be toothbrushes or guns or cell phones. I am not attached emotionally to particular markets to the extent that most investors are.
My attention to the fluctuating emotional trends of the masses is in fact a primary foundation of my trading strategies. There are waves of panic and euphoric delusion. Marketers and PR firms manipulate the perceptions of the public so that a pharmaceutical pill that costs 9 cents to manufacture can be sold for $31 by a hospital and then billed to the taxpayers of Canada.
In reference to my opening question regarding the source of public demand for currency, I will share a few comments. First, I will give the answer with a story.
Once upon a time there were two men and one had several guns and lots of ammunition. The other man had several bars of gold and some really important pieces of paper.
The two men were both crossing the same rope bridge over a canyon when they noticed each other. The one with guns was calm. The one with no guns was terrified.
One of the men died on the bridge that day. The other one left with all of the guns, the remaining ammunition, and all of the other valuables.
You know the people that we do not even know personally, but that we say we resent? Well, they may not really be the people that we resent.
What happens is that we experience resentment relating to actual interactions in our lives and then we might find some uninvolved people that we feel safe to identify as the target of our resentment. Maybe we post comments on facebook about the people that we are willing to say that we resent (and maybe we lose a few facebook friends over it, so then we may resent them for not being more agreeable to our prejudices).
Also, what if we have never resented anyone for what they actually did? What if we have only ever resented anyone for not doing something that we expected for them to do?
They betrayed us, right, by exposing our expectations and presumptions as merely being expectations and presumptions. They ruined everything, right?
Maybe they did. Maybe they ruined “everything” in terms of exposing immaturity and insecurity and pretense and arrogance. However, “ruining everything” may be one of the best things that could ever happen to someone.
When someone does not do something for me that I am afraid to do for myself, what is that called? That is called (by many people) “a natural justification for resenting them.”
Admit the fear. Welcome courage.
We could withdraw the displaced resentments toward people we do not even know (like some CEOs or some politicians or some random troll on facebook that really pisses off us). We could admit the resentments that we have harbored against people much closer to us. We have held grudges. We have intentionally repulsed people and have also made excuses for withdrawing.
What if it was okay for me to just openly withdraw? What if I could withdraw without resenting anyone- people I know or people I do not know?
What if I gave other people permission to resent me? What if I stopped holding a grudge against them as a punishment for them holding a grudge against me that one time in 2003 or 1986?
When we go around shouting out our list of resentments (like on facebook), there may be a lot of people who click like. Contempt can be very popular. It can even be a justification for getting up in the morning and who am I say to that it is not as good a justification as any other?
Contempt and resentment may be wildly popular. But that does not make them fun, does it?
If you are interested in having fun, contempt and resentment are practices that can distract from having fun. If you are interested in freedom, then you would be interested in having fun.
Are you? Are you really?
Exactly how interested in freedom are you? Or, do you flee from it in terror in to the familiar arms of resentment?
I choose resentment over so called delusional freedom anyday. Why? Because who wants to ignore the obvious truth that all of American luxury or “benefits” is had because of bloodshed and violence? You and yours alike it seems…maybe I am just envious that I can’t be as cold and heartless as CEO’s and the elite. That if at a young age I could just ignore WHY I was surrounded by so much wealth I could have APPLIED my compulsive delusional liar self and been one of the heartless. Give me liberty or give me resentment and I will choose the latter thank you very much.
Why are you so concerned about blood or violence? Do you know that you were trained to abstain from violence (through threats of violence) and then you were trained to have contempt for all “improper / unauthorized” acts of violence.
My comments on resentment are not “be ashamed that you have ever done it and stop doing it.” My comments include “notice the possibillity of displacing resentments that originate with personal interactions and projecting those resentments on distant, vague villains” (like bloodthirsty CEOs and of course the vile and coercive Pirates from Pittsburgh- which is the name of a baseball team that Daniel likes). Further, notice that disappointments that are systemic in origin are often BLAMED on people that we actually interact with.
So, the creation of expectations is systematic, and thus the disappointment is systematic (notice that most everyone has a very similar set of disappointments). Then, we interact with people who we find disappointing because we have delusional expectations from instutitions. Also, they are disappointed by us because they have basically the same delusional expecations from institutions.
The resentment is personal. I resent those who are “arrogant” enough to violate my delusional expectations, including my expectations that they be relaxed and mature (unlike me) when I violate any of their delusional expectations. WTF?!?!?!
So, the resentment is personal, but I project it at relatively distant groups (like at the Federal Reserve or the KGB or the jocks in high school, etc). Realistically, the jealousy / resentment / etc runs in a spectrum, but I raise the issue of people displacing their resentment far away from the true “sore spot.”
That is a coping mechanism. It is so effective that some people use a sequence of different targets of resentment for decades and decades.
After I have the courage to bring the focus of my resentment back to having a delusional expectation that someone violated (and then resenting them for it), next I can admit my terrified condemnation of their non-compiance with my sacred expectation(s). I can repent. I can withdraw my condemnation of their non-action or action. I might even apologize.
“My mother should not have spanked me because that is violent. So, I will now hate her forever because obviously she does not really love me and bla bla bla….”
Now, I notice that I had a mother (actually, two). Yes, I got spanked a few times. So the fuck what?
“The cop who arrested me scratched my wrist and broke one of my fingernails and totally messed up my hairstyle!” Wow, yeah, that is probably the first time that something like that has ever happened to anyone, right?
If you get that resentment is an actual behavior that takes energy and concentration and persistence (and language), then you can just notice it come and go. Let it be.
Chasing peace is a common form of agonizing. Peace just comes and goes. Agonizing just comes and goes. Anger just comes and goes. Frustration just comes and goes. Courage just comes and goes.
In one’s own experience, the self is immortal and eternal. The self is the trunk of the tree from which all over sensations and experiences arise.
As you get familiar with the idea of yourself that you were programmed to have (or otherwise inherited- whatever), then you can go from terror and loathing to respect and amusement and admiration. Self-loathing results in someone becoming secluded or isolated and that isolating serves to give one the opportunity to experience life without social routines to distract us.
Great work with the self-loathing. You may have it nearly mastered and then you can start teaching it to others who are ripe.
To be attentive in this moment would be to notice what is actually happening now. Are there familiar sounds or shapes that are recognized as words? If so, then right away we could pause to consider how language works.
First, why would we be interested in how language works? How is language important?
Language is used to communicate, so how is communicating important? What is the practical value of communication?
To find the answer, we can observe animals interacting with each other. When two animals see each other, do they stay still, approach the other, or move away?
When an eagle sees a rabbit, the eagle tends to approach and the rabbit tends to flee or at least freeze, right? Two dogs who do not recognize each other may bark at each other. The barking may express a variety of tones: a tone of aggression, of curiosity, of joy, or of distress.
So, why would a dog make any particular sound: growling, howling, whimpering, yelping, and so on? What is the basic function of those sounds?
We can define communication as any action that is intentionally designed to influence some other creature, especially in regard to their behavior. When a puppy squeals to attract the attention of its mother, that is an expression of distress and alarm. The puppy is calling for help. That is one instance of communication. Clearly, communication does not always involve language, though all language involves comunication.
When an eagle speeds toward a rabbit, is that communication? Is the eagle intending a particular response from the rabbit? Is the eagle exhibiting a preference as to whether the rabbit runs to the left or the right?
Generally speaking, most actions are not intended as communication. Communication is an action intended for the specific purpose of influence. With communication, there is typically a preference for a specific kind of response.
For example, if two people are playing a game of tennis, they may occasionally communicate without any speaking. How could they influence the other player without even using language?
Imagine that one player may act as if they were going to hit the tennis ball toward a particular area of the court, but then suddenly redirects their swing. If the whole process (of going one way and then suddenly switching directions) was planned from the start, then we can call that deception.
The initial movement was intended to produce a particular response form the opposing player (to mislead them). The perception of the other player was being misdirected (or that was the ideal).
What was the deception? The initial movement was intended to communicate a particular future swing. The opposing player would be out of position for the actual final swing. That possible outcome would increase the chances of winning for the deceptive player.
So, the deceptive player was attempting to influence the movement and positioning of the opposing player. They were faking one thing and then suddenly switching to something else. Further, the entire theatre may have been planned before the initial movement was made.
If the tennis player simply changed plans in the middle, then the first positioning would not be an act of communication. Maybe the player was just preparing to hit the ball and then suddenly they noticed what seemed like an even better angle for hitting the ball. That is just a sudden change of plans.
However, if the initial movement was always intended as an act of deception, then that movement was designed for the sole purpose of influencing the perceptions and behaviors of the opposing player. In that case, the initial movement would have been an act of communication.
The kind of communication that we just considered (involving a deceptive movement in a tennis game) is common to many species of animal. Even actions intended to promote secrecy (like physical camouflage) can be communication.
In the case of a lizard that changes color to match the nearby surroundings, there may be no intention or awareness behind the change of skin color. The eyes of the anole lizard perceive the nearby colors and then the body automatically shifts to match the color- apparently beyond the awareness of the lizard. So, we could say that their coloration is not communication because of the lack of awareness or intention.
Also, in the famous case of a chameleon lizard, they change color based on hormones. When terrified by a predator, they display stripes that make it diificult for a predator to see them. In contrast, when displaying submisssion to another chameleon (like after a contest for territory), the withdrawing chameleon signals their shift from combativeness to compliance by suddenly turning gray.
In the latter case, we could assert that by turning grey, one chameleon is specifically attempting to influence the behavior of another chameleon. But does a chameleon ever retreat without bothering to turn grey? If not, then we might consider the shift to grey to be at most an instance of unconscious communication.
So far, we have given a small variety of examples about communication. What we did not focus on yet explicitly is the actual use of words happening here. While words have been used for this entire presentation, we have only been demonstrating some concepts without specifically talking much about how the words are being used as we go.
These words are being used to direct your attention. By presenting a sequence of words that may be perceived as distinctive and intriguing, your attention is being led by these words. Of course, all instances of language involve the leading of attention.
In contrast, as you stop thinking about a brightly-colored chameleon, do not think of any kind of a lizard at all right now again. That previous sentence can produce confuson by making commands that are internally contradictory.
Because reverse psychology is impossible, we must invest more resources in preventing it faster. Do not think about a pink elephant because pink elephants are not the right color of elephant to think about covering with pink paint.
So, one thing that cannot be avoided when using words is the directing of attention. That is simply what sequences of words do. Consider the example of puns and linguistic irony.
One to three, for example, is a range of two. Zero to five is a range of more than two, as compared to a range of one to three. (“1, 2 ,3 ,4″) For me, too large of a range can be confusing for the pink elephants that you are not thinking about now. If seven pink elephants got so hungry that the seven ate nine hundred thousand pounds of food, wouldn’t that make a total of eight dozen elephants?
Is humor ever too deceptive? Or, is deception ever too humorous? If two actors are pretending for fun to be other people who are not even comedians, how hilarious could that be?
According to none other than the famous author Santa Claus, words can be used in a way that is confusing by accident or on purpose. In fact, the contrasting categories of “accidental or intentional” are not discrete categories with specific boundaries and a clear gap between the two extremes.
Also, words can be used in a way that resolves confusion and produces clarity either by accident or on purpose or somewhere in between. In contrast, if two trains are traveling from the east to the west at 40 miles per hour, how much earlier did the first one leave before it is too late?
In order to learn, are you willing to experience occasional confusion? If you say that you are not willing to either experience confusion or to experience learning, does making a statement like that alter the fact of at least occasional confusion and occasional learning?
Does resisting something make it less annoying? Does giving something a new label alter the thing itself in any way?
If I paint a word across the side of a pink elephant that says “lizard,” how is it even possible for an elephant to say that? Elephants cannot talk, right?
But doesn’t painting the word lizard across the side of a pink elephant instantly change the color of the word lizard? If the elephant walks from an open meadow in to a forest, then does the word lizard painted on the side of the elephant change color?
So, in language we can create presumptions as well as expectations. We can direct attention. We can direct it relatively consciously or relatively unconsciously.
We can presume that there are two opposing categories such as good and bad that are distant, isolated realms that are like islands that do not share a border. Or, we can speak in superlative terms like best or worst. We can speak in relative terms like better or worse. We can use rating scales from one to three or from one to ten. We could even use a scale ranging from one to three hundred thousand.
People who are not attentive to the nature of language may presume that good and bad are actual isolated realms. They may presume that there are two exclsuive groupings of phenomenon called reality and imagination. However, isn’t it obvious that there is really such a thing as the labels imagination and imaginary?
Reality does not exclude the imaginary. Imagine that two pink elephants were images on a photograph. If your attention is focused on the idea of a photograph of two elephants, then does your awareness really exist or is it only imaginary?
The category of “imaginary” is a category in language. It is not an isolated island far away from the rest of reality.
The category of pretending is not isolated from the rest of reality. We can subcategorize the realm of “pretending” by dividing that region in to smaller regions, such as the region of misleading someone with words or the region of misleading someone in a game of tennis through a sudden reversal of movement.
The word “pretending” implies awareness of the pretense, right? However, someone can mislead another person without awareness or alertness to the misdirection. A child may innocently and naively declare to another person that Santa Claus cannot possibly be fat because some chimneys are very narrow, so that proves that Santa must be slender enough to go through those chimneys.
After language focuses the attention of someone, can it focus their perceptions? Can language suggest the labels of how someone should relate to something else or someone else, such as if someone else is introduced to them as a very bad person?
If Santa has a profile picture on a dating website and the picture of Santa is several years old and shows a slender young man who can easily make it through narrow chimneys, is that deceptive? How deceptive is it? How is it deceptive?
What does it mean for something to be forbidden? When a powerful person or group says that there will be penalties for misleading other tennis players by making sudden movements, are they simply justifiying certain planned future actions? They identify some behavior that is somewhat rare and then claim the authority to assess when a violation of the rules has occurred.
They make up rules in order to enforce penalties for the breaking of the rules. If there were no rules, then how could there be any penalties? Further, if there were no accusations of a violation of a rule, how could there be any justification for the punitive action (which is now called “the proper punishment for the violation”)?
If an umpire in a tennis match blows a whistle and calls a penalty for intentional misdirection of the opposing player, then as long as the players continue to play (and continue to relate to the umpire as an authority over the score in their tennis match), then the umpire’s ruling stands. Can the umpire change the rules in the middle of the match? What are the rules about changing the rules and who enforces any of them? How do they enforce them?
Can the umpire enforce a penalty by mistake? Can an umpire enforce a penalty knowing that the accused player did not actually commit the alleged violation?
Can an umpire blow a whistle, throw a yellow flag on to the ground, and call a particular kind of foul, but then later declare that there was “no foul on the play.” Is that what is meant by a false flag operation?
Should language be used to direct the attention of others? Should language be used to direct the interpretations and perceptions of others? Should language be used to direct the behavior of others?
Should there be such a thing as reverse psychology? Should there be such a thing as a social taboo?
Should there be rules? Should there be accusations of violations? Should there be actual penalties as well as verbal justifications made of imaginary words?
Should we divide language so that there is only one right way to use language over here on this isolated island and then way over there are a few different ways to use language which are all wrong except for the only one that is the right one? Should language be used to regulate or rule the attention of the masses? Should language be used to regulate or rule perception and the behavioral responses to perception?
Should there be such a thing as propaganda? Should there be such a thing as indoctrination?
If a classroom of students are all rewarded by a teacher for repeating back the phrase “indoctrination is wrong,” is that right? Are rules ever used to justify rewarding some people but not others?
Are rules ever used to regulate attention, perception, and behavior? Are rules ever used to justify systematic patterns of discrimination, prejudice, and inequity? If there are no rewards or penalties relating to a particular set of rules, then are those rules even actually rules?
If a particular set of rules do not actually rule over or regulate anyone or anything, then how can those rules be honestly identified as rules? If two groups of people have two conflicting sets of regulations and both groups passionately identify one particular set of rules as the only right rules, then do they both behave as if they exclusively are justified and yet the opposition is quite insane?
Is there such a thing as delusional hysterias of panic and, if not, should there be? Hypothetically, if there was such a thing as a delusional hysteria of panic, would it be something that the rulers would be likely to promote or to attempt to prevent and reverse?
Would the masses be indoctrinated about terrifying demons to worship with their attention? Would the masses be programmed that the most embarrassing and dangerous thing ever was being confused or if not confused, then slightly imprecise?
What better mental illness could the rulers create than perfectionism? What could be more crippling to the well-being of the masses?
Which specific form of perfectionism is the best one? Is there only one right way to practice perfectionism and agonize about how other people perceive you?
Isn’t it wrong to be attentive to how other people perceive you? Isn’t it forbidden to intentionally communicate in ways that could influence the behaviors of other people in relation to you?
Isn’t that manipulative? Isn’t that breaking the rules and asking for punishment? Didn’t Santa Claus promise to reward you after you die with extra presents if (and only if) you behave exactly in the ways that your parents identify as good behaviors?
Perfectionism should not exist which is why anything that I do must not be called perfectionism or else I will launch in to a very sincere fit of hormonal distress as I insist that anyone who accuses me of perfectionism must be an insane person with an imaginary mental disorder of fantasy hysteria. That is why I had to kill them, bake them in a big oven for 50 minutes at 350 degrees, and then feed them to the word lizard written on the side of my pet elephants.
That is all because anyone who is agonizing over how to be a better perfectionist is going to be rewarded after they die with eternal punishments in heaven or hell. In the event that Santa misplaces the records of whether you have been good or bad, then your body posture and patterns of chronic physical tension will be assessed for the display of grey skin, which indicates submission, shame, and cynicism.
Of course, it should not be like this. However, because there is nothing that anyone can do about it, we can pretend that there is a brand new political salvation that suddenly can magically make everyone on the planet above average.
Inequality is wrong and must be prevented from being invented so that it continues to never have existed as a linguistic category of an ideal which is designed to distract the target audience from a precise perception of certain patterns of reality that are extremely obvious. These alleged patterns are so obvious that some deceptive actors pretending to be somoene else and just reading along with some script have passionately asserted that the obvious patterns can only be ignored if people are intensely programmed to ignore them and constantly focus on something else.
That is why language and logic should never be used the wrong way. We must forbid taboos because if I know anything, I know that telling someone that a particular behavior is wrong (without actually taking any action to coerce them in to compliance) will always result in them instantly dropping whatever form of perfectionism that they have been worshipping and suddenly convert to whatever form of perfectionism that I announce as the only right one. Also, if you do things the exact way that I say you should, then Santa will give you extra presents when you die.
Just imagine what you really want most as a fantasy to motivate you, then do whatever I tell you because doing what I tell you is the only way to avoid the guilt of failing to get what you really want because of breaking the rules the wrong way. My rules are the only right ones. In contrast to me, anyone else who says that their rules are somehow inherently right is clearly a mentally-insane retarded person suffering from delusional hysterias of panic (unless of course their rules agree with mine, in which case they are reasonably intelligent at least to the extent that they passionately agree with me). Also, if I ever for any reason change any of my rules, then anyone who previously had that rule and was called insane by me suddenly changes in to a very respectable and remarkably intelligent genius who just accidentally happens to have the word lizard written on the side of the pink elephant that probably should not even exist.
In 1993, shortly after his retirement, Dr. Meinig learned of the 1,174 pages of research done on root canal teeth by Dr. Weston Price, D.D.S., F.A.C.D. and 60 fellow research dentists. Their findings had been suppressed by the American Dental Association since 1925. This research, done over 20 years, showed, beyond any doubt, that there was no safe way to do a root canal filling. Not only that, but the research established root canal teeth as the cause of many serious degenerative conditions, including cancers. “
The dental root canal issue has been studied and verified (in that the location of the root canal – which teeth- reliably predicts exactly where the “cancering” will manifest). Further, I assert that the single intervention of replacing metal dental work with porcelain fillings has produced a full reversal of many cases of cancer (no dietary change and no lifestyle change).
“Cancer has only one prime cause. It is the replacement of normal oxygen respiration of the body’s cells by an anaerobic [i.e., oxygen-deficient] cell respiration.” -Dr. Otto Warburg-1931 & 1944 Nobel Prize-Winner
I say that Warburg was right, but his comment alone is not useful. *Why* do cells lose the ability to metabolize oxygen?
pH is the answer (and that may not have been established scientifically as of 1931 or whatever). Why is pH so far off from “normal” in so many people? Dental fillings “bleeding” electrons is my answer. That is a very useful answer whenever a filling can be easily replaced with porcelain.
This article focuses mostly on toxicity as it relates to cancer, but has lots of interestign actual data for any science nerds out there.http://www.icnr.com/cs/cs_21.html
They do not detail “getting a bridge” (a dental bridge) to replace a root canal, but that is the “useful info” in terms of reversing the process that causes the symptoms known as cancer.