About WORDS

September 13, 2012

 

 

 

about words

 

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?

My Google Profile

Mr. Pavlov’s honesty training program

September 12, 2014

The bell rang, so everyone sat quietly in their desks waiting for instructions. Then, the voice blasted out from the loudspeaker “Good morning, Class. Please be seated and then open your books to page 21.”

All of the students in Mr. Pavlov’s class had already been trained for several years in the proper procedure for education. When the bell rings, then they interrupt their spontaneous explorations and interactions in order to wait for the command of the ruling authority (their local director of attention, perception, and response).

The voice read the words from the script of page 21: “In an advanced civilization like ours, the most important quality that sets our group apart from the lesser civilizations is the quality of honesty. Students, is that true or false?”

All at once, the entire herd of students chanted “true” and then clapped their hands a single time. This was the normal routine in every classroom in the entire empire. The sacred curriculum specifies the common core to be memorized in full by every member of the religion. After memorizing each principle in the common core, then the students receive validation and rewards for repeating the slogan back to the ministers of education (on the goodness exams which rate how good a student is).

“Very good, all of you. True is the correct answer. Now, which student is so good that they can also tell me what honesty means? You will say the answer in your own voice but use the exact wording of the sacred definition on page 21. Anyone can answer. Look at page 21 and look halfway down the page to find the official correct definition of honesty. Do you see it? Next, get ready to read it out loud in a moment. Okay, the time to begin reading is… now!”

All at once, Mr. Pavlov’s class began to recite the words of the official definition of honesty. They began speaking each word in the stable rhythm of a metronome: “Honesty is saying exactly what you’ve been told to say by a valid officer of the holy empire.”

With great emotion, like a grandmother pretending to be astounded by a toddler’s  skill at walking, Mr. Pavlov said “Wow… that was truly amazing, class! You are all so good at being honest. You are so much more honest than any class that I have ever had in the past. I must be the luckiest instructor in the whole empire to have students as honest as you!”

The classroom responded with subdued giggling. A few moments later, the huge electronic viewing screen, which had been blank so far, displayed the words “Special bonus opportunity!”

This of course was the normal process every day in Mr. Pavlov’s class, but what exactly was the special bonus opportunity going to be today? The class was eager to know the answer and then compete for the special bonus, whatever it was.

The loudspeaker boomed the next challenge. “True or false: everyone should be honest?”

Suddenly, as they all had been carefully trained to do, the students raised their right arms in the imperial salute. This was the same as the old salute of the ancient enemy.

The people of the ancient enemies were all programmed to raise up their right arm high in to the air (so that their hand would be higher than their head, which made it easier for the authority to see the raised hands). However, Mr. Pavlov’s class was much more special than the ancient enemies because when these students raised their hands, they also stretched out their fingers and made their hands tremble and shake, which was a sign of their extreme eagerness to be honest.

You are totally shocked when Mr. Pavlov calls your name, causing your heart to race with excitement. As usual, the selected student would get up from the desk and come up to the front of the room to stand and face the class.

The other students begin to chant the word “bonus” over and over as they snap their fingers in time with their chanting. When you finally arrive to the designated area, the lighting around the classroom dims and a spotlight is shining on you alone.

“First, congratulations on being selected for the special bonus opportunity. You must feel very honored today. As you know, the rules are that I will repeat the question. Next, you will have three seconds to select an answer and then you will clearly state your answer for everyone to hear. Do you understand?”

Though you are slightly out of breath for some reason, you manage to say “Yes.” You do not even notice that your hands are also starting to sweat.

The voice of Mr. Pavlov once again comes through the loudspeaker. “Okay here is the official special bonus opportunity question. True or false: everyone should be honest?”

As part of their role, the rest of the class counts down the 3 seconds out loud. “Three… two… one….”

You are incredibly excited because you are absolutely sure that you are going to get it right. “True,” you shout.

“Is that your final answer,” asks Mr. Pavlov. “Is your final answer… true?”

“Yes, my final answer is true,” you say. You notice that the spotlight is very intense and you are reminded of a TV show that you saw once about a local civil military officer who was asking a series of questions to someone. The name of the show was “The Inquisitor’s Interrogation.”

“That is correct!” shouted Mr. Pavlov. Immediately, the herd of students erupts in to cheering and clapping.

You look around at some of your childhood friends cheering for you. You smile and reach out your arm in the imperial salute, waving your fingertips at them. They all keep cheering. As if you were sprinkling something from your fingers, you begin to move your arm back and forth from side to side.


“Stop” shouts Mr. Pavlov. This has never happened before. Everyone goes silent.

Several moments pass and again you notice the brightness and intensity of the spotlight. It is also notably warmer up here than at your assigned desk.

“Because of the extreme goodness and honesty of this student, we have another question. True or false: not only should everyone be honest, but anyone who is not honest should be severely punished.”

“True,” you blurt out. Then you cover your mouth, realizing that you answered before the right time.

The rest of the class gasps. The spotlight suddenly turns off and the regular lights of the room come back on. You broke the rules by speaking out of turn. Your legs start to tremble.

Mr. Pavlov says over the loudspeaker. “Well, I am very sorry, but we cannot accept the contestant’s recent answer, even though technically it was accurate. As you all know, it is against the rules to speak out of turn. As part of the penalty, we are canceling the reward that would have been received for the correct answer of the prior question. Further, the contestant will now report to the central disciplinary office for the school nurse to test for disorderly mental health in the form of an attention deficit.”

“But it was an accident. I mean I really only spoke out of turn accidentally,” you say as an apology.

“Silence!” shouts Mr. Pavlov. “You are only making it worse. This is not your time to speak. Report to the school nurse immediately. Do you understand?”

“Yes,” you say. You lower your head and begin walking past the other students. You notice that some of your closest friends have put their heads all the way down on their desks and covered their eyes.

“The show is over. The rest of the class will now return their attention to page 21,” the voice on the loudspeaker continues.

As you walk, the voice gets quieter and quieter. “This is a very important page because 21 is when a participant in our religion will automatically be given the privilege of paying taxes at the maximum rate.
The fifty percent tithe of the full participants (those who have reached the 21st stage or beyond) will support the further advance of our sacred civilization. Their voluntary contributions allow us to protect the rest of the world from dishonesty and introduce them to the advantages of our civilization. Now students, please all of you pay close attention at this time because here is a true or false item that will be on the very important test next week. True or false: a fifty percent tithe rate is the most honest percentage for a government to set, which is why our government is so much better than any of the dishonest governments who set the rates at thirty percent or even sixty percent.”

What will happen when you get to the school nurse’s office? Maybe they will prescribe more medications for you. You already are taking all of the standard medications that every student is required to take, including 3 shots every week to stay current on your vaccinations and of course the mandatory birth control sterility medicines.

What else will the nurse dictate to you as your behavioral program so that you can earn your way back in to the sacred classroom? You do not know exactly what penance she will announce to you, but you do actually feel very special to have had the honor to participate in the special bonus opportunity, even though your dishonest spontaneity ruined everything. In the future, you will try much harder to be perfect in general and, in particular, to pretend to look more relaxed.

 

 

An attack on logic, but in the name of logic

September 10, 2014
  •  
    which happened on facebook here:
    https://www.facebook.com/groups/124738497627977/551771731591316/

    (and, in case that post gets removed, here is the address of the group for anyone interested):

    https://www.facebook.com/groups/124738497627977/

    Note that some of SM’s comments are rather unrelated to my article. Nevertheless, I leave them in full as a study in the different patterns of communication displayed in the dialogue. Also, note that SM is the moderator of this group (current membership: 5,195).

     
    SM: There is a misunderstanding of the rigors of logic here.
     
     
     
  •  
    Sambhav Desai Hmmm sounds logical.
    3 hrs · Like
     
     
  • SM: Not really. Logic exists devoid of content. It is explained erroneously here.
    3 hrs · Like
     
     
  •  
    J R Fibonacci Hunn Sandra, you made a few assertions above with no explanation of your standards etc. You present what I infer to be an interest in the subject of logic. What is the nature of your interest? Also, what clarification or correction, brief or long, are you willing to offer for public review and critique?

    3 hrs · Edited · Like

    SM: J R Fibonacci, I am a cognitive neuroscientist. I have helped teach reasoning and logic at Brown University as elements in upper-level cognitive science courses on ‘thinking.’ The forms of logic are divorced from content: e.g., If ‘A’, then ‘B.’ ‘B’, therefore ‘A’. True or false. (Oversimplified example.)

  • What we know is that people have difficulty with logical reasoning when outside knowledge of the world intrudes. In terms of pure logic, something can be ‘true’ without being ‘true’ in our experience.

    The examples in this article are dealing with things besides pure logic.

    3 hrs · Like
     
     
     
     
    SM: This article would more accurately fall under a failure to consider background rates when calculating probabilities. In other words, Bayes Theorem, not logic, per se:
     
  • “In probability theory and statistics, Bayes’ theorem (alternatively Bayes’ law or Bayes’ rule) relates current to prior belief. It also relates current to prior evidence. It is important in the mathematical manipulation of conditional probabilities.[1] Bayes’s rule can be derived from more basic axioms of probability, specifically conditional probability.

    When applied, the probabilities involved in Bayes’s theorem may have any of a number of probability interpretations. In one of these interpretations, the theorem is used directly as part of a particular approach to statistical inference. ln particular, with the Bayesian interpretation of probability, the theorem expresses how a subjective degree of belief should rationally change to account for evidence: this is Bayesian inference, which is fundamental to Bayesian statistics. However, Bayes’s theorem has applications in a wide range of calculations involving probabilities, not just in Bayesian inference.”

    3 hrs · Like

     SM: We also teach about this in classes on thinking and reasoning. But, in a strict sense, this is reasoning about probabilities, not logic.

  • 2 hrs · Like
  •  

    J R Fibonacci Hunn I am still not clear on your interest. Also, I do not see any specific connection between the interests that I raised and what you referenced.

    I made extensive reference to everyday human experience including common sources of inefficiency in communication (potentially leading to panics of antagonistic arguing and animosity). I also made reference to applications such as investing (which certainly we could connect to the estimating of probabilities) as well as health.

  •  

    J R Fibonacci Hunn As concrete examples, I forecast the spiking of global fuel prices which I asserted (in 2004) would eventually cause (especially in developed nations including the US) a collapse of credit markets, real estate prices, and financial stocks. Most investors did not notice what I noticed and still may express confusion about what I consider very simple issues.

    Further, many people who I told about these issues going back to early 2003 were notably unreceptive. I noticed that many people had a tendency to defend their current investments as if they were afraid of the shame of admitting that their current presumtions might be imprecise- even extremely erroneous. The cost to them in some cases was enormous (such as a loss of $400,000 of standing equity in a home, leading them to foreclosure and chapter 13 bankruptcy).

  •  

    J R Fibonacci Hunn At the same time, enormous profits were made by those who were operating in accord… with reality. As an example, today I purchased $60 worth of something that I sold for $120 perhaps an hour later. My total risk was about $63.60.

    Those positions certainly could have lost value. But I seek out low-risk positions with very high potential gains. In fact, I had watched my positions drop from $150 to $120 and that is when I chose to “take my profit before it dwindled further” and re-allocate. They might reach $250 today, but I chose to exit at a modest profit ($60 in an hour is not bad, plus I was doing other things for the vast majority of the hour- like I ran two short errands during that time).

    This methodology is in stark contrast with people who borrow immense amounts of money to invest in high-risk markets with decreasing opportunity (like US real estate). Most people do not know how to estimate risk and future returns, so they simply project past performance which is why they so often eventually go bankrupt.

    Why did AIG and Countrywide and GM and Washington Mutual go bankrupt or nearly so? Perhaps because their forecasts were not really competent forecasts but mostly just projections of the recent past. That is pretty negligent if you ask me (not that you did).

    Of course, one party’s negligence is another party’s opportunity.

    25 mins · Edited · Like

    SM: The point is that you are promoting your own personal interests and agenda. You are labeling it “logic.” It has nothing to do with “logic” as anyone with even a smattering of experience in the rigors of logic could tell you. In fact, I would say that you are promoting your own political positions with regards to a number of issues. We do not allow political posts on this page. This page is dedicated to transformation, not economics or politics. Whether or not “AIG…go bankrupt” is not consistent with the stated purpose of this page.

  •  

    J R Fibonacci Hunn In another case, I lost the ability to walk in 2007. I consulted a variety of specialists who claimed no particular competence in comprehending the physiology of what happened to me, nor any confidence in their ability to produce a recovery. Rather than adopt the cynicism of certain practitioners in regard to my prognosis (as in “incurable”), I was extremely motivated to find competent guidance.

    One of my clients asked me how I was doing lately and I told her honestly (she had not talked to me since when I had lost the ability to talk). She said that my case sounded familiar to her and she explained the physiology as she understood it and then recommended a nutritional intervention that cost me $5. I recovered the ability to walk literally overnight.

  •  

    J R Fibonacci Hunn Later, I learned that an MD who also suffered from similar medical issues as mine had done some clinical research on severe cases of Multiple Sclerosis. Because she was already an MD before being crippled “with” MS, she received tremendous support from her contacts including the editors of a mainstream medical journal. So, after she recovered and funded her own clinical trials to repeat her results with others, she got her research published.

    However, that was years ago and the field of medicine can be rather slow to integrate new methods, especially when the profitability of those treatment methods is neglible. MDs need to profit to stay in business, so the natural tendency in the actual practice of medicine is to favor highly profitable methods over highly effective methods. Due to massive funding from special interests, lobbyists may even go out of their way to attack perceived threats to the profits of their corporate sponsors.

    I completely understand all of that. I think the MD in question was very shocked by some of the antagonistic responses that she got to her research.

    However, there is a logic to certain anti-science, pro-profit trends. I presume that she is clear by now that though some of the attacks were personal in their content, the issue was never personal, but always just business (which can be vicious).

    12 mins · Edited · Like
  •  

    J R Fibonacci Hunn That is a fascinating response, Sandra. What suggested political reform did you associate with my content? It seems to me like you are attacking a “straw man.”

    In my own experience in the legal profession, it is also notable when a criticism is made not in the original “complaint,” but only later. It can appears to others that the antagonist is scrambling to defend an unexamined position out of fear and panic.

    Of course, it is also notable when instead of requesting clarification or asking a question, someone makes an accusation. That can be rather repulsive in personal interactions.

  •  
    J R Fibonacci Hunn Also, feel free to clarify what you mean by “dedicated to transformation.” I presumed that you meant alternative ways of organizing perception that can lead to radical improvements in performance. If not, I request that you clarify (at least to me) what you do mean by that word so that I can assess whether there is a match or not.

 

  • SM: I assure you, JR, that I have no sense of “fear or panic” when talking to you. I find your argument to lack rigor. I have nothing to defend as I am not making any arguments and my only agenda is to promote the objections of this page. Please read the pinned post at the top of the page if you need clarification.

  • As a group, the admins have made it a practice to remove posts that are political or divisive; posts that promote specific political or economic ideologies. This often includes posts that are only concerned with conditions or issues in the US as this is an international group, not an American one.
    1 hr · Like
  •  
    SM: I might ask what the purpose of your long oratory is? Are you just looking for a soapbox to stand on? Were you hoping for engagement? If so, why are you objecting to my responses? No one else cared to engage.
    1 hr · Like
     
     
    SM: Oh, and you might consider actually “studying logic.” It is fascinating and misstated in your article.
  • 1 hr · Like
  •  
    J R Fibonacci Hunn Sandra, your responses do not “ask for value” from me. I do not have the sense that you are interested at all in my responses except to defend your own prior statements. If that is imprecise, so be it.
  •  

    Regarding a sense of “fear or panic,” I could restate it this way: were you responding to a perceived threat? In other words, were you operating in a “fight or flight” mode- even if only in a relatively moderate way? (Obviously, you were not fleeing, but weren’t you attacking or condemning a perceived threat/offense)?

    I am not saying that you should have been or should not have been. I am just inviting you to introspect as to your own patterns of experience and of communication. Feel free to decline.

     

    Yes, you might have asked what the purpose of my oratory was. However, you did not begin with that, did you? You began in a manner that I consider not only disrespectful, but extremely imprecise. 

    If someone else asks a question, I might take the time to respond (privately or otherwise). I am concerned about the context that you have set up though, SM. Thank you for clarifying  your agenda and your personal interests in the matter and how they have been organizing your communications.

    • SM: JR, this conversation has become boring. As an academic, I found your inaccurate assertions about ‘logic’ annoying. No fight or flight response. No elevated cortisol. I just prefer to see obviously bright individuals apply rigor to their arguments. You declined. I am disinterested. Enjoy your soapbox. Maybe you will attract another audience member. I have given you enough of my attention.
       
    •  
      J R Fibonacci Hunn Isn’t annoyance an evidence of interest? You state a preference just above, which is not confrontational or demeaning. So, you have a preference which was related to the experience of annoyance, right?
    •  
      J R Fibonacci Hunn FYI, I did not specifically decline to increase rigor. If you meant to request it, then any request of yours was not clear to me. Of course, I might decline or counter-offer any request- or, and here is where I think the big issue is for you, I might accept.
    •  
      J R Fibonacci Hunn Also, “I am withdrawing and turning off notifications” is an entirely sufficient response. Instead, SM, you said more than that.

      From my perspective, you gave me nothing of particular value or interest to me. Your coments were off-topic relative to my post.

      What you did is that you gave time and attention to every keystroke that you made, just as I am doing and just as millions of facebook users are doing. If you currently wish to withdraw, that is perfectly valid. There is no expectation from me of a further reply from you.

The logical advantage: results beyond mainstream hysterias

September 9, 2014

Logic is what makes the difference

 

Have you ever considered the possible value of studying logic? Logic involves a specific kind of attention to language.

We’ll explore exactly what logic is in a moment. First, why would we explore logic? What benefit could it have?



The logical advantage

Logic is what makes the difference between people understanding each other or people arguing and fighting. It is very helpful for clear, concise, efficient communication.

Logic is also what makes the difference between investors who consistently make far above average profits and investors who are surprised by huge losses (occasionally or frequently). Surprised investors may get embarrassed about their losses, then even panic and start blaming others for their own choices (to gamble without a full comprehension of the actual risks). In other words, if they previously recognized and expected certain possible risks, then they would not be surprised if that outcome develops. So, therefore their surprise is an indication of their prior lack of attention to that potential result.
For instance, people may say, ”but I have a piece of paper right here guaranteeing that the insurance company will pay me in a case like this!” Shapes of ink on paper do not guarantee that the insurance company will be in business or will have the funds to keep every single promise (within a huge pile of unfunded promises) that it has made.

Legal guarantees are just legal guarantees. They are not actual restrictions on future developments, right?

Someone attentive to logic will recognize what a legal guarantee is and what it is not. They will also recognize (without emotional distress) that an insurance company is a business that is accumulating a huge collection of legal liabilities and then gambling on the possibility that the company will have enough new revenues (like from monthly premiums) to cover whatever legal obligations they have at any particular time.

Or, people may say, “but the government regulates this kind of investment, so it must be safe because the government would never support anything that was not beneficial to all of the participants involved.” With that hysterical “logic,” the people who buy state lottery tickets will brag about how they “know” that they have better odds than the people who play bingo at church or who play slot machines at the casino. “We know that our lottery tickets are good investments because we bought them directly from the government!”


Logic vs. mainstream hysterias

We can generally contrast logic with hysteria (as in distress or panic). Let’s consider now how presumptions and frustrations can be experienced in two totally distinct ways.

Someone attentive to logic will recognize frustration as a signal that there is a presumption that differs from reality. They may be curious or even committed to identifying the various presumptions (which are often unstated) and then assessing each presumption relative to the higher standard of reality. Imprecise presumptions can be refined. Irrelevant presumptions can be discarded.

They can calmly look for the unfulfilled interest behind the frustration, then discard or refine methods that are ineffective (disappointing). The frustration and disappointment are welcomed as opportunities to identify potential sources of huge improvements in efficiency and satisfaction. All of this contrasts sharply with hysterical reactions.

In a panic of distressed hysteria, the logical functions of the brain can get buried under the stress hormones designed for physical activity (for fleeing and for fighting). When there is a contrast between presumptions and reality, terror floods through the organism. Instead of favoring the actual reality as the higher standard over the presumption, some aspect(s) of reality may be neglected or even condemned as “wrong” or “something that should not be.”

The presumption (though clearly inconsistent with reality) may be worshiped, then defended, justified, and glorified. Reality is devalued or even totally sacrificed while the presumption is elevated to the status of divine.

Contrary evidence (or even a skeptical curiosity) can be targeted as threatening. Displays of aggression (arrogance) may arise in an effort to distract attention away from obsolete presumptions (and the faulty logic that depends on them).

Agonizing may develop because the rejection of reality requires an anxious intellectual activity (in regard to how to fix reality to make it conform to the favored presumption). Also, there can be agonizing about any future reality that is contrary to an important presumption: how can that embarrassing “evil” be prevented? The result can be political campaigns and even the mass programming of curriculum to promote one perception over any perception that threatens the recognition of the presumption as just a presumption.

 

The hysterical will anxiously ask “how can we make the world from how it should not be in to how it should be (according to whatever presumptions)?” They will collect in to groups of fundamentalists and fanatics and then fight all of the other hysterical idealists who agree with them that the world should not be how it is, but who only agree on a portion of the presumptions about how the world should be.

“Those people are crazy hysterical idealists who only agree with me about 86% of how reality should be (or certainly no more than 97%). How can they be so foolish? What is it with people these days?!?! Let me think of all of the irrelevant reasons that I can use to justify dismissing the very frightening display of skepticism and alternate interpretations!”


Frustration: a threat or an ally?
So, those in hysterical panics have no real appreciation for their frustration as a signal to slow down and invest in logic. They just go back and forth from one level of frustration and anxiety to another: moderate, extreme, a brief relief through exhaustion, then another round of escalating frustration, resentment, and animosity.

“Those horrible other people are getting in the way of me fixing reality so that it conforms to how I wish it would be! In fact, I think some of them may be to blame for reality being how it is (and for my very important presumptions being inconsistent with the inconvenient and frustrating details of reality). Actually, it is not reality that is frustrated me, but those unreal people over there- yes, so unreal- who are the ones who are frustrating me. I need to do something about them. This frustration should not be how it is. I deserve better. I should not be in this hell. Once those people stop ruining everything, then I am going to fix reality (to make it from how it actually is in to how it should be) so that I can earn my way in to an eternal heaven eventually, but just not yet.”

Recall the teaching of the Ancient Hebrew prophet Isaiah: “Note that some worship without effect, teaching human presumptions as if they are the highest standards of reality.”

(In the Gospels of Mark and of Matthew, Jesus Christ directly quotes that teaching of Isaiah. Comprehension of these teachings in modern Judaism and Christianity are evidently quite rare.)

What if we respected frustration instead of condemning it, avoiding it, fearing it? What if we recognized what presumptions are? What if we respected how they can be useful, but also can lead to confusing one thing for something else? What if we were alert to the dangers of presumptive idealism and making our preferences in to full-scale hysterical idolatry?

Presumptions do not need to be avoided (which would be an extreme of delusional perfectionism). Presumptions can be respected without worshiping them in hysteria or defending them in a panic. Presumptions can be recognized, then evaluated objectively by measuring reality, and then updated or discarded.



So what exactly is logic?

Logic is a specific kind of attentiveness to language (a certain kind of mindfulness). Studying logic, we can explore how certain initial presumptions or speculations can be connected to a later assertion or claim. We can even notice how certain pre-existing conclusions can be justified or rationalized through constructing certain premises or seeking out certain information as evidence, then presenting it in order to bias others toward our pre-existing conclusion.  In mild hysteria, unsound logic is also used to resist reality and learning, and then that process can be ironically labeled by the hysterical one as “skepticism.”

The presenting of particular information as evidence (even as justifying a conclusion deemed favorable) may be done in a few different ways. We could call some presentations logical and some presumptive or even hysterical.

Here are some examples:

Cholesterol levels are high around tissues that are damaged, therefore cholesterol is the sole possible cause of the damage to the tissue.

Fire trucks are frequently present near burning buildings, therefore fire trucks are the sole possible cause of the fires that burn the buildings.

Once a particular presumption is worshiped as sacred, then all forms of skepticism about it are considered threats. Curiosity becomes the most disturbing of all possibilities (as George Orwell would have said, “in a time of universal deceit and denial”).

But the idea that mass hysteria and delusion are especially new is also presumptive. Sure, modern systems of indoctrination (such as cable television and public schools with their common core curriculums) are unusually efficient. With advanced technology, tiny groups can promote a historic extreme in consensus groupthink among immense masses of people. However, what if logic has never been especially popular?

Why are people so easily deceived when a perceived authority announces a new cause for hysteria and paranoia? When the high priest of the ministry of health presents a correlation about high levels of cholesterol as a cause, why are people so naïve? Why do they then defend their presumption to avoid being revealed as naïve?

It is simple enough. The ancient reptilian brain takes over the neurological functioning of the masses. The elite recognize this and create programming systems to install propaganda.


The logic of programming hysterias

A group of naïve people herded together in to a kindergarten class can be fed information like “cholesterol is a substance that your liver makes to poison you.” Then, they can be manipulated in to repeating back the propaganda slogans to receive social validation from the teacher in front of the whole class. They are given report cards and, if their blind conformity is sufficient, then they get promoted to higher grade levels and eventually receive a diploma or even a PhD.

The same basic methods are used in churches as well. In other settings, like plantations, the use of propaganda is less emphasized in favor of physical coercion, torture, and threat of human sacrifice.

In the specific case of taxation, the agents of the government intimidate their economic resources, promoting compliance through threats of arrest, incarceration, asset seizure, garnishment, and foreclosure. To minimize rebellion and competition, the government agents criminalize unauthorized acts of extortion. This maintains a near monopoly on extortion within their system of taxation to redistribute wealth from their human resources to the agents of coercion.

Once the masses are sufficiently terrified in to compliance, then the court system can dictate what form of payment of the invented tax liabilities is allowed. A court could allow taxes to be paid in many different ways, like wheat, firewood, or gold. Or, a court may allow only one form of payment.

Whether a court accepts several kinds of payment or just one form of payment, their system of intimidation can create a lasting surge in public demand for that form of payment. In the case of the Confederate States of the Southern U.S. in the 1860s (the Civil War era), certain pieces of paper were accepted as a valid way to pay taxes to the ruling court system. However, as soon as that court system was defeated and the ruling court system was suddenly the United States (not the Confederacy), then public demand for the confederate currency disappeared almost instantly.

What is the basis of power for every government in human history? The rulers have military superiority over the ruled.

Further, lots of propaganda can be publicized to discourage people from recognizing that guns are what give courts power, not incidental things like gold. (Without the guns of the court system, the people would not be interested in gathering gold to pay debts to their well-armed extorters who dictate that only gold can be used in repaying the debt… because the court system has created a monopoly of exclusive access to all the gold mines in the region.)

Governments may say that “Unauthorized killing is a shameful crime.” Then, they may add that military drafts are sacred institutions and that failure to participate in government-approved slaughters and genocides is also an even more shameful crime.

However, there is no objective difference between one slaughter and another. Every government justifies their own slaughters (usually as revenge for other slaughters or as pre-emptive strikes to protect the masses from… unauthorized warfare).

But for those deep in programmed hysterias, these ideas may be disturbing or spark shame or guilt. “Are you saying that the story of Santa Claus was deceptive and not literally true in every detail? But I do not want it to be true that I used to be naïve. I would rather to have never been naïve and certainly not now. Go away, you pesky jerk. You are too analytical. It is infuriating.”

So, they may launch heroic crusades to save the world from deception (and from corrupt governments). What other kind of governments are there? There are many fantasy governments that exist in language, but perhaps have little resemblance to anything evident in actual human history.

So what is the logical advantage?

The logical advantage is to welcome the recognition of hysterias and similar mass delusions. We respect them. We do not deny them or try to hide them or prevent them or even justify them.

We just respect that hysterias exist (or at least might). We do not worship them constantly with sincere condemnations or any other form of attention.

What we do is to welcome our own interests. We do not relate to them with shame (even if we modestly keep them private or secret… or pretend that they are not what they are).

We can respect the Hebrew Commandment of “do not commit perjury” (as we respect the immense power of court systems of extortion and intimidation). We can recognize that “thou shalt not lie” is simply a behavioral manipulation, not a credible translation of an ancient criminalization of perjury. When we are under the physical domination of a regulatory supervisor, then we can respect that reality.

 
We do not harbor any hang-ups or fixations or attachments. If one shows up, we can recognize it and release it. We do not harbor hysterias.

Instead, we recognize our own interests and pursue them. We do not deny past naivete.

We do not worship sincerity as if good intentions were anything more than good intentions. We do not worship determination as if it would cure for frustration to just keep repeating the same thing over and over again expecting different results.
In other words, we respect this simple philosophical principle:

“If you have sincerity and determination, but not logic, then still you have nothing of real value. You are missing the point.”

(See 1 Corinthians 13 & 14)

What results do we get?

In regard to investing, we get consistent returns far above average. In regard to communication, we are attentive, discerning, selective, and effective.  In regard to health, we avoid the massive tangles of confusion produced by mainstream indoctrination about health (i.e. “poisonous cholesterol, demonic possession by a living entity called cancer, etc”) and we simply promote health (using highly efficient methods that we have no particular interest in any government institutions approving or publicizing).

In many other realms, we consistently produce far above average results. Why? It is not that our methods are actually all that radical or complex.

The masses just do things very inefficiently (in accord with their programming) and we avoid the massive pitfalls of complacent “tunnel vision.” By minimizing or entirely avoiding the immense risks of “average” methods, we consistently produce far above average results.

On the importance (?) of “being empty of ego,” only loving, etc

September 9, 2014

TPSG shared this image (with the pre-existing caption below):

Resist the impulse to shut down your mind or become angry and instead, simply ask yourself this question with honesty.</p>
<p>Why do you think you are right and they are wrong? Do you believe as you do simply because you have been told to believe it by other people before you? Would you believe as you do if you were born into another culture or at another time?</p>
<p>These are very serious questions that we must ask ourselves.” width=”353″ height=”394″ /></p></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class=
Resist the impulse to shut down your mind or become angry and instead, simply ask yourself this question with honesty.

Why do you think you are right and they are wrong? Do you believe as you do simply because you have been told to believe it by other people before you? Would you believe as you do if you were born into another culture or at another time?

These are very serious questions that we must ask ourselves.

TPSG added: Always maintain a ” Beginners – Mind ” , endeavor not to get caught up knowing the ” TRUTH ” .

ZPS commented: boy, this opens up a can of worms! religion is seen by many as somehow “bad”, like being blamed for wars and murders, and torcher, and yet, if we really look deeply, we see that it is the humans, the human ego that does this.

to blame religion is like blaming science for the nuclear bomb, bio-warfare, and many of the diseases that were spread by them. but science, like religion is just humans doing what they do. trying to help, and sometimes getting it right, but a lot of time, getting the ego in the way and mucking it all to hell.

the path of seeing who you are, can also be screwed up, and I have seen where ego enters this path also. the so-called “trick” to all of this, is to look with honest eyes, as who you are, and know that everything must be dropped in order to really see, or as the Zen folks say, “Only don’t know”. that way, all these crazy beliefs are bypassed. 

 

 

JR wrote:

  • ZP, you seem to be suggesting that there is something bad about ego and wars and murder and torture and craziness and maybe even blame. Maybe there is.

    However, if that is your assertion, then obviously you are not operating from “only don’t know.” You already know those things are bad, don’t you? You reject them and condemn them, just like all of the rest of the herd of mindless “rejectionists.”

    You may still be full of ego, not that it is anything important. (To the one full of ego, “being empty of ego” may seem VERY important. What if it is not?)

    Can you drop all of those beliefs, all of that complexity, all of that knee-jerk rejectionism, all of that dishonesty, shame, and shaming. Can you look with an open mind, with an honest heart?

    “There is a time for a war and a time for peace. There is a time to love and a time to hate.” – an Ancient Hebrew proverb from Ecclessiastes, Chapter 3.

    Billions of people throughout human history have been taught that there is more than one religion. What if that is at least slightly imprecise?

How a holistic model avoids the confusions of reductionist medical “demon worship”

September 8, 2014
  • Barry wrote: does baking soda alkalise the digestive system or the blood? or both?

  • J R Fibonacci Hunn Let’s start simple. Every pancreas on this planet (in every animal that has a functioning pancreas) makes baking soda (NaHCO3- which is in the picture above is in the bottom left in the blue text).

    It is released in to the very top of the small intestine to neutralize the intense acidity that is present when the contents of the stomach are released in to the small intestines (which SHOULD contain a lot of HCl- hydrochoric acid). The acidity of HCl and the alkalinity of the baking soda mix to produce NaCl (salt) and H2O (water).

    For more info, see: http://jrfibonacci.wordpress.com/…/how-much-salt-and…/

  • J R Fibonacci Hunn Baking soda is commonly used (typically, when moistened with water) on the skin for countering any type of acidic inflammation, such as from a bee sting. It is also used in foot baths or full-body bathing.

    Consuming baking soda in a liquid may or may not be favorable depending on the person and the dosage. (For instance, since cancer is basically a label for the effects of an acidic pH in a particular tissue or region, baking soda has been used orally to treat cancer, but solutions – liquids- with baking soda have also been directly injected in to acidic areas to neutralize the acidity and discontinue the effects of the acidity- which can be labeled “cancer”).

    For more info, see: http://jrfibonacci.wordpress.com/…/baking-soda-cures…/

    jrfibonacci.wordpress.com

    J: what are your thoughts about adding baking soda to water to ingest or alkalinSee More
    22 hrs · Edited · Like · 1 · 
  • J R Fibonacci Hunn Taking baking soda orally is typically the method that people have used to excess, leading to reducing the acid levels of the stomach to the point of causing a huge cascade of negative effects resulting from incomplete digestion of proteins. The acidity of the stomach is THE mechanism for digesting proteins and if it does not happen there, then undigested proteins beyond the stomach are likely to be attacked as foreign proteins.
    22 hrs · Like · 2
  • J R Fibonacci Hunn Another term for that is “an allergic reaction to the proteins in food.” Compromising the digestive process by raising the pH of the stomach so much that the stomach acid is ineffective… can be disastrous.

    Also, given that the masses of people consume so little seafood or other food rich in iodine, the massive deficiencies of iodine lead directly to a deficiency in stomach acid, and that means that even small amounts of baking soda added orally can be quite unfavorable because the organism’s digestive function is already so compromised.

    22 hrs · Like · 2
  • J R Fibonacci Hunn So, even though there is an intense emotional hysteria regarding baking soda and salt amongst certain “alternative health” enthusiasts, that is the logical equivalent of the mainstream paranoia about cholesterol [which I address in detail in the previous blog], saturated fat, or unpasteurized mammary fluids (milk). Human bodies make these things for a reason. Discard the mainstream religions of hysteria (if relevant, one hysteria at a time).
    22 hrs · Edited · Like · 1
  • J R Fibonacci Hunn Here is a picture again showing NaHCO3 (baking soda) in the pancreas ready to be released in to the upper small intestines. Keep in mind the simplicity of the issues here.

    http://www.medicalook.com/systems_images/Pancreas_large.jpg

  • J R Fibonacci Hunn Next, here is a news item about $2 million of funding in 2012 for baking soda as a cancer treatment at University of Arizona. I have criticized the ignorance of the PhDs (directly to them) in their use of terminology like this:

    “… acid destroys surrounding tissue, which allows the tumor to grow, invade surrounding areas, and metastasize to other organs in the body.”

    http://www.newswise.com/…/new-test-found-for…

    www.newswise.com

    A $2 million National Institutes of Health grant has been awarded in support of See More
    22 hrs · Edited · Like · 1 · 
  • J R Fibonacci Hunn They are still talking about cancer from a model of 19th century demon worship. Yes, acids rips apart molecules and destroys tissue, then that accumulation of non-functioning matter can increase in size- but it is not ALIVE, so it does not GROW. Acidity is not a living creature (a demon) that INVADES other areas.

    If enough acidity is present in a tissue, that will destroy the tissue and lead to the accumulation of the waste that has not yet been removed. That can be labeled a cancerous tumor.

    Cancer is not alive. Cancer is not a demon. Most MDs are just unaware of the lack of scientific credibility in their “religion.”

    https://www.facebook.com/groups/484191885033833/

    • I created this group so the conversation on this event could shift to a group in

    See More

  • Valerie Steinfeld I like how you have written this in bite size pieces J R. It makes it easier to assimilate! Thanks! Val
  • Valerie Steinfeld To look from a bigger perspective and identify the factors that create problems in the human body and in our world at large is what is needed to really understand and actually solve them. To me this is constructive critical thinking! Bravo and thank you!
  • J R Fibonacci Hunn Valerie, it is understandable to sometimes have an orientation of resolving problems. However, such a “remedial” model (which is “against problems” as in “allopathic”) will never produce the efficiency of a holistic model.

    People who are seeking remedies operate in a very different “wavelength” than those simply focused on promoting health. They suppress symptoms and manage symptoms. That is one way to proceed but can eventually produce catastrophes.

    So, anyone appraoching health with an exclusive emphasis on diet or nutrition is not operating from holism. Anyone focusing on biochemistry is missing the much more efficient realm of electromagnetics (physics), which includes the issue of pH / acidity / voltage.

    Voltage is a scale that measures electromagnetic charge. So is pH. They are like fahrenheit and celsius. The vast majority of people do not comprehend the simplicity and basics of physics, and so they argue about biochemical remedies (dietary changes) and so forth.

    That could be like building a house with your eyes closed. Sure, it can be done, but it can be confusing and frustrating. Why not open your eyes while building a house? Why not set aside the inefficiencies and confusions of a biochemical, remedial orientation?

    One issue is that there is so much social reinforcement (including the propaganda of public schools and so on) that promotes the use of models developed in the 19th century. (Many of those models were also discarded by leaders in their fields within that same century, but how many people today know that?)

  • Valerie Steinfeld J R, you just identified 5 factors that help to form a bigger perspective from which to look and improve health and life. I believe we are saying the same thing. I was giving you a compliment. I hope that came through in my communication. Improvement comes with an increase in understanding and awareness. The more understanding and awareness, the greater the improvement. You are adding to understanding and awareness with your insight and information. I appreciate you. I do feel that there are problems that come up in life and in living to resolve. Resolving them effectively leads to happiness. How is that remedial? I agree with you that allopathic approach is a tunnel vision approach. It is difficult for me to tell sometimes whether you are disagreeing with what I am saying or simply making another point! Have a good Sunday! Val
  • J R Fibonacci Hunn “Tunnel vision” has many forms. That was my point (distinct from yours, but related).

    Anything that is not a holistic model that studies how a healthy organism functions will never provide the efficiency of that perspective. So, we can be skeptical about the way that the researchers at the Univ. of Arizona report their findings. Their findings are useful as evidence, but of what?

    If they base their conceptual model on what I am calling 19th century demon worship, which they clearly do, then that explains why their results show only a tiny fraction of the effectiveness of the actual trail-blazing researchers in health. They may have results maybe 500 times as efficient as chemotherapy. So what? That is 1/100th of what is easily available. (10 years ago, I would have been excited by that, but today that seems trivial.)

    What will get publicity? The U of A research.

    What will not get publicity? The research of folks like Jerry Tennant, MD (for instance) who in two minutes could dispel 90% of the pseudo-scientific presumptions of the mainstream model of demon worship [and a fair amount of my comments on the issue of cancer are abbreviated paraphrases of his comments and findings].

    Further, the chemotherapy lobbyists are not going to just suddenly disappear. Their interest is profit, not health. No government agency is every going to approach the scientific efficiency of leading independent researchers. Bureaucracies cannot operate with that degree of flexibility.

    Isn’t it fascinating that the U of A researchers (among millions of others) continue to speak of cancer as a living entity that spreads and grows and “attacks?” To me, that is remarkable.

  • Valerie Steinfeld Fascinating…but honestly words and their nuances of meaning can be an infuriating way to communicate especially when you cannot see someone and I feel that we are distinct ships passing in the night. I am not sure that counts for real communication!!!! I am not certain how the University of Arizona comes into play here, but you possibly posted something about it earlier in the thread? Don’t know.

    I acknowledge and understand what you are saying. To simplify: Problems present themselves. A wholistic view is best to carry forth resolution. If I am inaccurate or not using the correct words, forgive me, but I do intuit we are in agreement!

    Barry, I hope you have gotten some answers that are helpful to you!

  • J R Fibonacci Hunn One point was that the research at any university (such as U of A) will typically get more publicity than the results of a single practitioner (or even a group). It could be important to realize that the mainstream media (and mainstream schools) are not primarily vehicles for promoting intelligence, but for promoting the special interests of those who form those organizations and fund their operations. The media will typically be unreceptive to “independent researchers” (especially research that would “offend” their advertisers) and will only publicize things like university research, plus only in certain cases and only in certain ways.

    (Also, Valerie, yes I posted a link way back there to research at U of A establishing that drinking water with baking soda has been documented as reversing a variety of forms of cancer.)

    8 hrs · Edited · Like · 1
  • J R Fibonacci Hunn Next, I have been offering a holistic view. An example is this: someone contacts me and says that they have a list of problems.

    I say “let’s focus instead on what promotes health” and then go through a hierarchy of issues, asking them what they are doing or not doing. In many cases, one or two very basic changes can resolve a huge list of medical complications with a single method.

    To a mainstream medical practitioner, they would see arthritis, bursitis, leaky gut syndrome, GERD, fibromyalgia, bone cancer, and skin cancer. They might have 7 different treatments to inefficiently address each diagnostic label independently.

    To me, I would see 7 forms of one thing: inflammation. What causes inflammation? Acidity reliably causes inflammation, like if you dip your hand in some battery acid briefly, your skin will AT LEAST get inflamed, right?

    Acidity at a joint causes joint inflammation, which is labeled “arthritis.” (Note that when a TV ad says “arthritis causes joint inflammation” that is like saying “heat causes a high temperature.”)

    Acidity in the upper small intestines causes inflammation of the intestinal wall (AKA leaky gut syndrome). Each various location of acidity (like acidosis of the blood etc) will get a different label by an MD as if there is something fundamentally distinct about that inflammation from the rest of the inflammatory symptoms in the patient.

    7 hrs · Edited · Like · 1
  • J R Fibonacci Hunn So, the MD’s conceptual model may be “reductionist” and therefore their treatment methods tend to be complicated and inefficient (as they “attack” each symptom as if it is an isolated thing). In a week, I can produce results that they might not produce in a decade.

    How? Stop contributing to ANY inflammation and start countering ALL of the inflammation… very efficiently.

    I do not get confused by the diagnostic labels like MDs seem to be. I do not relate to arthritis as a mysterious cause. I relate to it as an incidental label for a [predictable] effect.

    7 hrs · Edited · Like · 1

From “something is wrong” to “someone is wrong” (Justice!)

September 8, 2014

Robert wrote: “[Is the US on "the right side of justice" in Ukraine?] …I’m more and more convinced that politics is a form of religion. You just get married to a particular religion, and then all the other ones suck. And then you hang onto your own version of the truth as though it gives you some sort of purity….

I know that nations go to war over resources and economic issues, but not over ideology. The Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor because the US was squeezing them on natural resources needed for their adventures in China and elsewhere. But they didn’t attack us over some abstract political idea.”

muddy glasses 2

  • J R Fibonacci Hunn It can be challenging to have a mature conversation with anyone who has strong emotional charges relating to some subject or some idea. Emotional charges are, in many cases, designed and programmed.

    People tend not to understand the origin of the word justice (or be familiar with the goddess Justitia, etc). They do not understand the basics of how the political conquests of the ancient Hebrew tribes (like the slaughter of the Midianites as reported in Numbers 31) are the direct ancestors of many aspects of modern civilization.

    For instance, many people think of western medicine as a discipline within science rather than as a religion. While science is used in western medicine, there has been immense resistance in modern medicine to uncontroversial science at least as old as the 19th century.

    However, when money and politics make a particular scientific principle (or evidence) “incorrect,” then it is marginalized. Further, when hysterical ideas like “cholesterol is dangerous” are recognized as profitable, they are massively publicized without regard for the total lack of science establishing cholesterol as a cause of health issues.

    Cholesterol is sent to repair damage. The correlation between high levels of cholesterol near tissues that are unhealthy is in no way evidence of cholesterol causing illness.

    It is like saying that the presence of firetrucks causes fires. Removing the firetrucks does not reduce the risk of new fires or the severity of old fires. Likewise, impairing the liver’s production of cholesterol is not healthy. That idea is incredible.

    However, the lobbyists for anti-cholesterol medications are not interested in science, but profits. Likewise, when the mainstream media in the US repeatedly asserts that our Nazi enemies committed genocide, but makes no mention of any genocides in Ukraine by our Soviet allies, one might wonder if they are in the business of unbiased reporting or the business of bias.

    There is no such thing as an unbiased media or an unbiased school. The idea that “bias” is somehow “to be avoided” is an indication of a particular religious belief system. The idea of “no bias” is kind of like the idea of “take a picture of your house without facing in any single direction… so you avoid having only a limited point of view in any particular photograph.”

    The reality is that we are in the midst of a religion that systematically excludes certain biases while promoting the idea that “being unbiased” is not only possible but favorable. In a way, it is a genius method of psychological warfare.

  • Robert Q. Riley JR would you mind saying that again, but a little differently? What the hell do firetrucks have to do with justice?
  • Dan Burger I like red firetrucks, I do not like yellow firetrucks. I’m pretty sure the yellow firetrucks start fires, and the red firetrucks put fires out.
  • J R Fibonacci Hunn What does justice mean? How can you measure it? What is the “right side” of it?

    Are you asserting, Robert, that it is NOT just “some abstract political slogan?” Why do Republicans and Democrats both scream for justice but [reference] two contradictory [outcomes with] the same word?

    1 hr · Edited · Like

    • J R Fibonacci Hunn Justice has always been a word that refers to the declarations of the ruler (like the officiating warlord of a particular court). Justice is a social construct.

      When Oliver North and Caspar Weinberger and Marc Rich all break a long list of laws in the US, then justice is that there is a US criminal prosecution of them [through the Department of JUSTICE].

      However, it is still “justice” for a US president to reverse or prevent a criminal prosecution. President G.H.W. Bush and President Clinton were not “obstructing justice” when they pardoned the Iran-contra law breakers. Their legal actions were still the legal process called “justice.”

  • J R Fibonacci Hunn To me, all the confusion and interest in these kinds of debates (from a mode of antagonistic arguing) is a sign of a kind of immaturity. People begin with an “amygdala reflex” of stress hormones [that I call] a panic of upset, then say fascinating things like “something is wrong here” (a problem) and then “someone is wrong here” (the villain) and it “goes downhill rapidly from there.”
  • J R Fibonacci Hunn  Dan, a great analogy with the LDL and HDL cholesterol is that fire trucks with no water left (“low-density firetrucks / LDFs”) cause fires and “HDFs” (with lots of water) put them out.

    How can anyone who knows what a lipoprotein actually is (whether an LDL or an HDL) seriously suggest that one of those two types “causes health issues?” That just does not happen. Anyone who says that a high concentration of any kind of lipoprotein is a cause of health issues is displaying their lack of comprehension and competence. It is a hysterical hysteria, like saying fire trucks cause fires.

    FYI, there is no structural difference between LDLs and HDLs. All lipoproteins are containers that begin with a high density of nutrients (the state of being an HDL) and then as they go through the bloodstream and distribute those nutrients, they lower the density of nutrients within the lipoprotein and then can be classified as “LDLs.”

    When people ask “which form of cholesterol causes health damage: LDLs or HDLs,” that is a nonsense question. It is exactly like saying “which firetrucks start fires: those full of water or those that have already sprayed out most of their water reserves?”

    “Which form of cholesterol causes illness” is just not an intelligent (logical) question. It is a question concocted by lobbyists to sell damaging medications which interfere with the liver’s essential function of producing cholesterol (as in assembling fire trucks).

    The medications were developed. Their effects were measured. Then, someone had to figure out a way to market the medications and vilifying cholesterol was the ridiculous but successful marketing idea that, like a long list of outright deceptions, became popular.

    Teachers were given curriculum to train students to worship the devil of cholesterol. “These livers are creating compounds that are almost as dangerous as fresh breast milk!”

  • J R Fibonacci Hunn People “get married” to the idea of “something is wrong” and then look for which “someone” is to blame. They may look for US president to blame for the 1989 collapse of the Japanese inflationary boom or the 1999 collapse of the European boom. Herds of emotionally-reactive imbeciles on the floor of the NYSE [a reference to a recent comment made elsewhere by Dan B.] do not comprehend the simplicity of reality because they are “married to” a particular set of presumptions that prevent an intelligent exploration of the issues.

    Why did people like Warren Buffet lose immense amounts of money in recent years? Because they did not forecast the easily predictable shifts and make immense benefits from them. And to this day, they may still be talking about who to blame – “which someone was the someone was who wrong?”

  • J R Fibonacci Hunn What was “wrong” prior to the decline in housing prices and stock prices in the US, EU, and Japan was that those price were way too high. What was wrong prior to the spiking of global fuel prices beginning in 1999 was that those prices were way too low.
  • J R Fibonacci Hunn In my 2003 and 2004 publications forecasting those price changes, (and a continuing spike in fuel prices) what kind of conceptual foundation is totally absent? I did not begin with a religious fanaticism about any particular price level being “horrifyingly wrong.”

    Prices can simply temporarily be “at an extreme.” Trends form, then accelerate, then mature (approach reversal), then reverse.

    Who do I “blame” for the huge increase in US stock prices from 1982 to 2000/ 2007 / 2014? Investors who purchased stocks and drove up prices.

    Who do I “blame” for the decline in prices? Everyone who sold those investments, which predictably produces declines in price- sometimes sudden.

    For instance, the “evil” baby boomers in the EU, US, and Japan did some very “evil” things around 2007. They started reaching retirement age and selling their stocks and went to cash or bonds. What a shock, right?!?!

    Why did they sell their summer homes and move in to a smaller place, causing real estate prices to collapse? Because when someone reaches the age of 62 (some would say 58 1/2), then they start investing in “evil and unjust” ways (like selling stocks and buying bonds).

“Get right with God” – a challenge to worshipers of blind conformity

September 7, 2014
“Get right with God.”What does this phrase mean? Of course, the word “God” has been used by many people in many ways. What does it mean to “get right with god?”

It could mean a contrast with “being right according to some set of localcustoms- in blind conformity with them.” Even if the customs are followed, they can be followed out of respect and convenience, not out of terror and vanity.We recognize that customs are different from place to place and they come and go. They certainly have their purposes and their importance, but they are not to be worshiped as eternal foundations for human conduct.

So, to get right with God could be to reduce our attention to customs. We do not need to worship them by obsessively defending them. We also do not need to worship them by obsessively condemning them, attacking them, or reforming them (so that certain current customs which we worship as evil can be replaced by certain other customs which we worship as the key to heaven on earth).

Discard utopian fantasies. Those who tell you that heaven is a future outcome that you should help them produce through political reform and political salvation are misleading you. Even if they are sincere, they are still false prophets. To be more specific, they are using the word heaven in a way that may not be good at all for YOU. So, beware of them.

Heaven is eternal. That means it is always available without any required rituals (or reform campaigns). Rituals can certainly promote the awareness of heaven. Rituals do not bring heaven to someone. They bring someone to notice the eternal presence of heaven.

What exactly is heaven? It is one possible human condition. Heaven has often been described, for instance, as peaceful or serene.

Can someone already be peaceful or serene? Is a ritual required to be peaceful or serene? Is there any intermediate step required as a pre-requisite for being peaceful and serene (or is serenity always directly available… even to one who has been anxious or panicking)?

“Get yourself together” is a phrase that I have heard many times. Apparently, the idea is that someone is already “not together” (as in “scattered mentally”) and then is going to “get themselves together.” It is a rather strange saying if taken literally, but as long as two people both know what is meant by it, it can be perfectly useful, right?
“Get yourself together” may be extremely close to what I mean by “Get right with God.” It means a certain kind of shift of focus. If focus has been on a bunch of customs and obsessively conforming to those customs, then “get right with God” could mean to withdraw attention from such distracting “trivia” and focus instead on being serene.
But is a direction to “get right with God” no more than “calm down?” It is not just a momentary intervention. It is much bigger than that. It is approaching a much more  comprehensive instruction like “live your whole life in heaven.”
It may mean to calm down, but it also may mean to take new, decisive action. There are certain patterns of activity that correspond to relaxing our prior attention to social customs.We can withdraw from those who worship social customs- even if we maintain those customs. The issue is that people who worship a custom are operating from a background of anxiety (like concern for what others think), not from a background of respect for the actual function of the custom. They actually neglect the spirit of the custom by ignoring why it exists.

Of course, it is fine for people to be loyal to a custom without understanding it. People learn the custom itself before they learn the reasons for it, just like a small child is first taught to only cross a road while holding the hand of an adult. The child is trained to conform as a priority and understanding the custom is simply not the first priority.

So, one problem can be when people who do not understand a custom begin to worship it (often presuming that they do understand it). How do they relate to the custom? First, they glorify it (often relating to it as a practice that should be universal, rather than something that is merely customary or routine). Soon, they may bully others even for as small an issue as failing to glorify the custom.

Why are they so insecure about whether others glorify a custom? The reality is that they do not understand the custom. They have a social anxiety about any lack of conformity to the custom because they are terrified of the possibility that someone might question- even respectfully- the value or function of the custom.

“It is sacred! It is what makes us different from those who follow 98% of the same customs that we do, but not that other 2%.”In other words, they use their public display of loyalty to the custom as a cover to distract people from the fact that they have no idea what the actual value of the custom is. They simply conform blindly- like a small child who has been trained not to cross the road without an adult- and yet they are immensely ashamed of the simple fact that they are simply conforming blindly, so they make a big drama of tantrums and bullying and so on.

They are far from heaven. They are in the temporary distress of hell. Their blind conformity to customs does them no good in regard to accessing heaven because customs are not the way to access heaven.

The child who is waiting for the adult so that they can cross the road together is not conforming to access heaven. In fact, they may be rather impatient, yet still conform. Conformity can be very valuable, but worshiping conformity can be an immense risk.

Alertness is a different state than blind conformity. When someone is obsessing about customs, they are not being attentive to what is actually happening. They are in a state of latent panic (a state of anxious, hysterical distress).

When groups of people get together to encourage each other to neglect actual alertness and logic in order to obsess over whatever customs they agree to worship as the best customs, that can lead to very risky behavior for the entire group. They are like a group of mountain climbers who are operating on a protocol that is relevant for boating.

By obsessively doing the things that are very appropriate while boating, they can create immense dangers. They discard alertness and wisdom in order to have the social validation of the group.

“We are the safest boaters on this mountain. Look at those other fools who are using climbing equipment. We do not need climbing equipment because we have a sail which will catch the energy of the wind and lift us up toward the mountain top so that we can go faster and with less exertion.”
They are not simply proud (like calmly aware of their own competence). They are presumptive and naive and arrogant.For one person to climb a steep mountain without equipment would be risky, but they would go slowly. However, it is very dangerous for a group of people to climb a mountain while rejecting the idea that mountain climbing is best done in a certain way distinct from what works while boating.

Those who insist on boating their way up the mountain might be overly enthusiastic. Of course, they also might ridicule anyone who questions the prudence of their boating protocol while climbing a mountain.

“Oh, and look at those fools who are using a legal protocol to climb the mountain. They are consulting their lawyers about the best way to climb. What fools?!?! Don’t they see that climbing a mountain requires other customs and routines than winning a court case?”

Note that fundamentalists have no issue with questioning other forms of fundamentalism. In fact, in order to distract themselves from their own hysteria, they may ridicule the hysteria of others “religiously.”

The legalistic mountain climbers may gather together and criticize the stupidity of theboater mountain climbers. They may even yell taunts at the boaters: “How can you people think that you can climb this mountain without first getting a piece of paper and then using ink to make some shapes on the paper that are symbolic codes to specify the nature of your relationship to the mountain?”The boaters dismiss the content of the taunts of the legalistic fundamentalists, but they still are terrified of anyone questioning the protocols that they worship, so they are likely to return their own taunt back at their critics. “How can you people climb a mountain without a proper sail? Where is your mast? Where is your anchor? You people know NOTHING about climbing mountains the right way!”

The boaters fell much better after reassuring themselves that their critics can be dismissed as fanatics and fundamentalists. Instead of acknowledging any intelligent questions, they seek out the most bizarre criticisms to ridicule those critics and ignore the presence of actual skepticism, which is the real threat to them and their blind arrogance. To avoid admitting to the existence of skeptics (to the idea of boating protocols as the best way to climb a mountain), the boating loyalists focus on the idiocy of the legalistic mountain climbers.

They may agree that the legalistic mountain climbers are similar to them in that everyone is climbing mountains. That will be considered a small justification for a pretense of respect for the legalists. “At least they are smart enough to be climbing a mountain, but they are a bunch of arrogant, blind conformists!”

People who are not climbing the mountain at all generally are ignored by the boating mountain climbers and the legalistic mountain climbers. Further, people who are actually at the top of the mountain are generally ignored as well. No, let’s complain instead about that other group nearby to us who are going up the mountain about as slowly as we are.

If we do talk about the folks at the top, the legalists and boaters might briefly agree though. “How did those people at the top of the mountain get there? They must have broken the rules to get there! They are there unjustly. They cheated by using mountain climbing equipment. That is unethical and it is disrespectful of the mountain to wear spikes on your shoes while climbing. It damages the mountain! It causes erosion! It makes a smooth footpath up the mountain that is easy to follow… and that could lead to even more people trying to access the peak without the proper sailing equipment!”

The critics (among the boaters and the legalists) do not call their criticism envy. They just agree that the people at the top of the mountain clearly should not be there now because they used the wrong methods to get there. The boaters focus on the lack of the use of a sail by the people at the mountain top. The legalists focus on the lack of a pre-approved climbing itinerary signed, dated, notarized, and filed with the county regulatory agency.

“Come down here right this instant and get proper documentation from us or else… or else… or else we are going to sit right here and wait for you because those are some steeps slopes between you and us. You are under arrest!”

In addition to the various patterns of language used by the various critics, there is also the issue of risk. Because they form in to big groups, they may antagonize other groups and get in to conflicts. Further, even without the presence of other groups, their attention to issues like conformity to the customs of sailing can distract them from alertness to the mountain they are climbing.Not only are they neglecting to be attentive to the mountain. In addition to that, they may be doing things that are extremely risky while mountain climbing. They are not just inattentive to being safe on the mountain. They are oblivious. They may be doing things – with tremendous obsessiveness and passionate sincerity- that will predictably be catastrophic somewhere between where they are now and the top of the mountain.

So, people who are smart enough to keep a safe distance from any group of fanatics are better off than those who rashly climb mountains enthusiastically as they worship the customs relevant for sailing. The recluses have a better chance of figuring out for themselves what works well for mountain climbing. They are not avoiding learning (like those who are worshiping the customs of sailing and are totally inattentive to the actual process of climbing the mountain).

When a few people who are smart enough to avoid fundamentalism first notice other “loners,” how do they act? They may be hesitant. They may even be presumptively critical of others to test for fundamentalism and hysteria. Or, they may be quite eager… even too eager.
However, no matter what, they are not distracted from learning by fixating of defending certain customs. They will experiment. They will experience successes and failures. They will learn.
Further, there is an ancient legend that the group at the top of the mountain used to be below the top and climbing up. Some people may have been born in to that culture and so they are excellent climbers (even if they are not very skilled at other tasks like boating or the practice of law). However, long ago, before that culture was established, is it possible that there were a few loners who found each other, got themselves together, got right with God, and then created some customs that are effective for climbing mountains?

The idea that customs were created by people is considered a simple fact by some groups. Other groups call such “accusations” by the label of “heresy.” “How could our customs which are eternal and proclaimed by God be anything like the customs of other groups who also claim that their customs are eternal and were proclaimed by God. They are illogical and insane and hysterical and heretical. Now, let’s go kill them so that they do not confuse future generations with displays of curiosity and skepticism.”

Rumors that the group now at the top of the mountain would ever encourage bickering and warfare amongst the boaters and the legalists are quite unpopular among the boaters and legalists. According to the tradition of both of those two groups, the theory of a conspiracy to keep the boaters and the legalists fixated on fundamentalism and animosity between the two groups is called by the very evil label of a “conspiracy theory.”

For both groups, how do they relate to the theory that their own religious customs were influenced by or even created by another group in order to dominate and exploit the naive and foolish and arrogant? They ignore it and focus on the stupidity of those who attempt to climb mountains without the use of sails (when the critics are the boaters) or with the use of sails (when the critics are the legalists).

They both worship slogans like “get right with God.” They have no idea why the custom of saying “get right with God” was started or by whom. They just worship the customary propaganda that they have been trained to worship.

What would be really utopian, according to you, is if the world was one day in the future permanently rescued from all customs. Customs themselves are the big problem, right?

Those who assert that there is such a thing as irony or sarcasm or parody are probably just a bunch of reverse psychologists and their conspiracy theories can be instantly discarded as no more relevant to mountain climbing than the customs of that other group of fanatics over there who are so unlike us. They are blind. They are conformists. They are worshiping trivia and neglecting what is best.

They worship the ideal of “what is best” with their lips, but they know not what they are doing. They know not what they are saying. Their worship has is irrelevant in regard to noticing heaven (or even totally contrary to that possibility, a crippling distraction).

“Their worship is a farce, for they teach man-made ideas as commands from God.”
 

“Rightly did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written: ‘THIS PEOPLE HONORS ME WITH THEIR LIPS, BUT THEIR HEART IS FAR AWAY FROM ME. 7‘BUT IN VAIN DO THEY WORSHIP ME, TEACHING AS DOCTRINES THE PRECEPTS OF MEN.’ 8“Neglecting the commandment of God, you hold to the tradition of men.”

Mark 7:6-8

 

The Lord says: “These people come near to me with their mouth and honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me. Their worship of me is based on merely human rules they have been taught.”

Isaiah 29:13

 

Logical psychology: Recovering from the terrified arrogance of mainstream hysterias

September 6, 2014

Logical psychology: Recovering from the terrified arrogance of mainstream hysterias

Have you ever noticed that a sequence of words was intriguing to you? Maybe they were moderately unfamiliar (as in notably different what you would expect).

Sometimes we may notice that most of our interactions and conversations seem very predictable (even boring). We form expectations based on noticing consistent patterns. We develop a set of expectations and then presume that life is going to continue to operate according to whatever patterns that we have learned to expect. However, we may not even be aware of our presumptions.

If you can drive a car, then you can imagine approaching a busy intersection with a red traffic light. Imagine that you are heading north. As you get close to the intersection and slow down, you notice that there is very heavy traffic flowing across the 4-way intersection (from the right and left along the lanes going east and west).

As you are almost to the intersection, you were already expecting the light to change from red to green soon and finally it does. If there are no vehicles ahead of you in your lane, then you can expect to safely enter the intersection since the light is green, right?

You expect the flow of cross-traffic to stop, right? However, do you presume that it has stopped just because you are facing a green light? Or, do you look to check before you proceed in to the intersection?

Did I mention that as you approached the intersection, you heard a bunch of loud sirens and saw flashing lights? The heavy flow of traffic so far has included two huge firetrucks and four police cars, plus now that you look you can see an ambulance coming. It does not look like the driver is planning to stop even though the traffic light in their direction is apparently red.

Again, the traffic light right ahead of you is clearly green. You expected it to turn green and it did. You may have expected the flow of cross-traffic to stop by the time you saw the green traffic signal.

However, you can see the ambulance speeding toward the intersection from the east (from your right). You can also see that the ambulance has crossed over now out of the normal east-bound lanes in to an empty west-bound lane (the lane you would be in if you turned right).

So, since your traffic light is green, you can expect it to be safe to go ahead and turn right in to the lane with the speeding ambulance, right?

You can safely presume that whatever you expect is always what will happen, right? Even though you see the ambulance, you could go ahead and turn now with plans to later use the excuse that you had expected that lane to be empty, right? After all, what could be safer than turning now when not only do you clearly have a green light, but there is also an ambulance nearby in case of any unexpected collisions?

In you case you did not notice, I was demonstrating the difference between expectations and presumptions. Having an expectation does not require making a presumption. You can expect the traffic intersection to be empty and safe, but still know that it is just an expectation, so you actually verify your expectation. You could make the presumption that your expectation is accurate without checking, but you could also check the actual traffic.

In both cases you have an expectation. In one case you could make a presumption and act on it without verifying it.

With presumptions, you may not even know that you have an expectation. You may just presume that the current situation is bascially identical to all previous situations and so you take action presumptively. That can be a source of problems.

For instance, you could get in to a head-on collision with a speeding ambulance and then suffer serious injuries or even instant death. Or, you could barely avoid a collision, get embarrassed, and then yell at the stupid driver for doing something that you did not expect (driving in to the intersection in disregard of the traffic light).

That other driver violated not just your expectation but also your presumption. They revealed your lack of attentiveness to the actual flow of traffic.

You may tell the story for weeks of the stupid punk driving the ambulance without regard for the red traffic light plus going in the wrong direction and surprising you. You do not like surprises.

You tell the story over and over to the other inmates in the county jail. Eveentually, you go to court and tell the story again to explain why you were justified in doing what you did.

When the prosecutor refers to your behavior as a crime, you could be offended and yell threats of violence. You could demand that the bailiff arrest the prosecutor for what you call their “presumptuous and rude display of insanity, contempt, mental illness, and total ignorance of right and wrong.”

As you finally get to tell your story, you anticipate the sympathy of the judge and the jury and even the prosecutor. All of these errors are going to be corrected once you tell people what really happened.

They just do not understand yet how you were doing the right thing and the idiot driving the ambulance is the one who deserves to be in jail. You are just going to tell them and straighten out this whole little misunderstanding of theirs.

Your only friend in jail even said that you should expect an apology letter and probably a few thousands dollars to be awarded to you for the emotional distress that this injustice to you has caused. All of the other inmates laughed when you told your story, which is obviously evidence that they are intellectually inferior to you. Who wants to be friends with people as dumb as them, right?

You think of your one friend who agreed with all of your presumptions and of course you consider their agreement to be a sign of intelligence. Why? Because finally someone undertsands you.

What do I mean by “understands you?” I mean that they acted in conformity to your expectations and preferences.

So, I began by saying “have you ever noticed that a sequence of words was intriguing to you?” By now, you may be wondering what I meant by “terrified arrogance.” Or, perhaps it is already quite clear.

When someone has naive expectations and presumes that reality will always conform to their expectations, then that can lead to an exposure of the naive expectations as being naive expectations. When the expectations are revealed as only expectations, then people can feel confusion, terror and panic.

 

They can be worried that others will recognize that their expectations were actually just expectations, not reliable principles for how life actually goes. They can be scared of criticism and punishment. They can be scared of being recognized as confused or scared. They may shout that “I am not scared!”

So, in a terrified hysteria, they can condemn whatever event violated their expectations. They can arrogantly threaten those who do not operate according to their expectations (like the ambulance driver, the prosecutor, and all those stupid, law-breaking inmates who laughed at your story of how the people who made the traffic light victimized you).

Don’t these people realize that you were sincere in your expectations? You did not drive in to the intersection by accident. You drove in to the intersection on purpose because the light was clearly green!

You did the right thing. Other people were wrong. You were right. You are still right. The other people are still wrong.

If there is a condemnation made of some past event because of terror, could that be arrogance? If there is an acceptance of a past event as surprising and even frightening or confusing (because it exceeded your expectations), then that would be respect and humility rather than arrogance and contempt, right?

If there is a condemnation made of some specific indivudal or group because of terror, could that also be arrogance? If there is an acceptance of their past action (or inaction) as surprising and even frightening or confusing (because it exceeded your expectations), then that would still be respect and humility rather than arrogance and contempt, right?

Now, perhaps you are sufficiently clear about what I meant by terrified arrogance. Note that I am not asserting that there is any other kind of arrogance except for terrified arrogance.

Arrogance is a pattern of behavior to hide a lack of confidence. There is a background of private terror that someone’s lack of confidence will be recognized, so arrogant boasting is emphasized socially. The perceived threat presented by possible skeptics and critics can be targeted for ridicule and abuse. Others can be repulsed or pushed away by the harshness, aggression, bullying, and coercion of the arrogance.

Those who dared to display skepticism in regard to your sacred expectations and idolatries can be systematically targeted for defamation and sabotage. Your resentment of them is deemed by you to be justified, certainly not a sign of insecurity. Don’t be insulting!

You are not jealous of them. That is silly.

You are not over-reacting. That is hysterical.

You are not upset. You are just standing up for what is right. It is also quite pathetic that so many other people are so complacent and naive, unlike you.

Now, so far we have been using an example about driving in to an intersection and nearly colliding (or actually colliding) with a speeding ambulance. That was an example that I just made up for educational purposes.

Next, we’ll talk about a few actual cases in which I have been arrogant. Let’s also talk about mainstream hysterias, how they form, and how they relax.

Let’s see if we can even produce a fully recovery from any terrified arrogance that I might still have… because I certainly would not want to imply that someone as mature as you could still have naything left to you learn ever. That would be simply hysterical, right?

“I don’t know what to do.”

September 3, 2014

One of my favorite “dilemmas” was what I would call “not knowing what to
do.” It can go by other names besides a dilemma, such as curiosity, open-
mindedness, relaxation, spontaneity, or even boredom.

How does “I don’t know what to do” become a dilemma? When I have a second
background issue of being anxious about what other people think, then not
knowing what to do could be labeled a “problem.”

Do they notice that I do not know what to do? Are they threatened by it?

“He should know what to do. It makes me look bad that he does not know!”

Once, a very long time ago, I did not know what to do. I was not operating
according to a plan. In other words, I did not have a plan approved by the
city commissioner’s review board. Again, odd as it may seem, I did not have
a plan at all.

Was it horrible? It was actually rather simple.

I had no plans to breath. Breathing in and out just came and went.

I had no plans to grow teeth. They just grew.

I had no plans to grow hair. Again, hair just grew.

 

So wasn’t it horrible, though? How could I just grow hair if the hair was
basically growing by itself and I was not planning it all in advance?

How was all of this stuff (that I did not even know to do) going to
actually happen? I did not even know how to do any of these things like
grow hair or grow teeth. Further, among the things that I did not know how
to do, I did not even know TO DO those things at all!

Eventually, I learned this new thing called language and, after I learned
language, I learned a story about someone named God. One odd thing about
this God was that apparently God was the one who grew all of the hair on my
head.

Not only that, he could count all of those hairs. What?!?! Seriously?

I did not know much about this God fellow, but it reminded me of the movie
Rainman. God was apparently one of those rare individuals who could just
look at a jar full of marbles and instantly know exactly how many marbles
were in the jar. God was obviously an “idiot savant.”

So, as I said, I was told that God could count the number of hairs on my
head. That was quite impressive. I do not know if there was any kind of a
prize or contest in which counting the numbers of hairs on my head was the
challenge, but God was apparently the one who could tell the rest of us who
had the correct guess.

Something was weird about the story, though. How exactly could God count
all of the hairs on my head instantly?

An idiot savant is a great subject for speculative scientific research or
maybe a TV movie, but eventually I was told that God was not an idiot
savant, but a genius. If God was such a genius, then I’d like to have this
alleged genius show me how to do the hair-counting trick. Where was I going
to find this genius?

Right about then was when I realized that I did not know what to do. Should
I find God? Should I seek to learn the magical secret of hair-counting?

I felt like maybe if I did find God, then other people would reward that
with their love and congratulations and so on. However, since I did really
not know how to find God, I figured I would just retreat a bit from my
embarassing ignorance about not knowing how to find him and say instead
that “I do not know if I should find God or not.”

I later added “I do not even know if God can be found!” As time went on, I
retreated even further from my sure-fire method for being adored by
everyone (to learn God’s hair-counting secret)… by questioning the
existence of God altogether!

“If I can’t find him,” I speculated, “then maybe that is because there is
no such thing. Furthermore, how do I even know that he really CAN instantly
count all of the hairs on my head? What if he was just bragging to try to
impress me and made up the whole thing about the number of hairs on my
head, presuming that I did not know some trivial detail like the number of
hairs on my head, so I would be unlikely to challenge him on the issue.”

I felt duped. How could I have let something like this happen? Once again,
I did not know what to do.

 


Of course, I did know that something needed to be done. Obviously,
something needed to be done about something, right?

All you have to do is look around with the intention to find an idealistic,
utopian issue and then you can find lots of other people who are already
eager to tell you about the thing that according to them everyone needs to
do something about. People need to do something about all of the important
social issues. People need to do something about the planet. People need to
do something about that one government. People really need to do something
about lots of things, right?

I, however, did not know what to do. You can recognize by now what a
serious crisis this was becoming for me.

Other people were getting quite hysterical and passionate and panicking
about the things that something needed to be done about. I did not have
anything important to do like they did.

No one was congratulating me for what a great job I was doing in regard to
the thing that something needed to be done about. No one was attacking me
for doing something about the wrong thing instead of obsessing about their
favorite issue.

I was so lonely. I just wanted to, you know, connect to people. I did not
even know what to do!

By that time, I had totally forgotten about God. I had totally lost
interest in the very important issue of being able to instantly count
hairs.

Probably because of my lack of special skills, no one thought that I was a
genius. No one thought that I was an idiot savant. No one thought about me
much at all.

They talked to me, sure. But they were clearly talking about themselves,
not about me. They were thinking about themselves and the glories of making
importnat reforms and saving the world from some very important problems by
doing something about those important things.

Suddenly, the number 1.62 million came to my attention for no reason
whatsoever. I did not even think about how the number 1.62 million could be
very important. I just gently pondered it.

I was not thinking about hairs or counting. I was just walking down a
stairway one day and, with total certainty, I thought of 1.62 million.

What was it? How was it important?
I seriously did not know what to do with this number. I thought “what am I
going to do with this,” but nothing came to mind at all.

This was not an important issue. This was just some number.

No one was offering to give me a college scholarship if I could count
hairs. No one was even mentioning hairs!

What about all the prizes that I was going to win if I could provide the
accurate total number? There were no prizes. It was all a fantasy.
Naturally, I was pissed!


Who even cares about this God person? I don’t care. I don’t care about it
so much that I got a T-shirt that says “I do not even care about God.”

However, I do not even wear it. Who really cares, right?

Anyway, I still do not know what to do. Now I call it freedom.

It is a perfectly valid dilemma though. You can not know what to do and
then contemplate how you might be able to eventually know what to do. That
could be fun, right?

You could find a club where people could discuss knowing what to do. You
could find a book that is all about knowing what to do. Or, if you cannot
find a book about that, then you could write one.

Language can be interesting. Through language, people can be paralyzed in
to confusion about figuring about how to know what to do.

There are certains things that are what to do, right? Other things are what
not to do and the things to do are very important, right?

Plus, there are things that it does not matter if you do or not. That gives
us three categories: what to do, what to definitely avoid doing, and then
everything else.

People need to know their priorities so that they can decide between which
things to do first, like growing teeth or growing hair. After we figure out
what priorities people should have, then we could tell what priorities to
have and monitor their behavior to let them know if they are doing the
things that it is a priority for them to do.

We need to make sure that people are doing the right thing. They should do
the right thing and they should do it the right way.

That is what people should do. That is what to do.

Or, we could count hairs. I really do not see the point of that though.
Every time that I have ever done it, I got 1.62 million, so why keep
counting hairs over and over when I already know exactly how many there
are?

So what would be fun? Do you know what would be fun? If not, I will tell
you.

How about this? We could make fun of humans and how they use language and
how they do the wrong things the right way. That would be totally,
hilarious, right?

You go first. I do not even know how to do that, so I will just watch you
and see what I can learn from watching.

Do it. Go ahead. I dare you.

You’re too scared, aren’t you? I just knew that it was going to be a
mistake to count on someone like you!

I do not know what I am going to do if you do not do that one thing.
Seriously, I just do not even know what to do about this.

 

This is important. I should know this. I can’t believe I do not know this.
This is so embarrassing.

So, seriously, are you going to do it or not? You need to just relax and do
the important thing the way that it should be done.

That is what you need to do now. That is what to do.

Do that. Do it now. Do it or else I am going to threaten you!

You know what to do. Do not even mess with me and pretend that you don’t
know. I know that you know. You can agonize about it all that you like, but
that is not going to stop me from recognizing that you know what to do.

Don’t even try to pretend that you do not know. You totally know. I can see
it from the look on your hairs, all 1.62 million of them.

 

Do not be a chicken shit about being influential

September 2, 2014
God has chosen for this exact sequence of these words to be present here with you. You will in a moment recognize once again the reality of the fact that influencing emotions is an important possibility in human interaction.

For instance, when presenting the emotion of euphoria, the same words can produce a different effect than when speaking with frustration. Consider the two following presentations of the phrase “Honey, I love you so much!”

“Oh my god, baby, I thought I would never see you again. And wow here you are. I am so glad to see you. I can hardly believe it. Baby doll, come here and give me a big hug. Honey, I love you so much!”

“Look, you clearly do not understand me. I have been trying to tell you this a thousand times and it is like you simply lack the ability to comprehend the English language. Will you please look at me when I am talking at you? First, you misunderstood my intention. I think you did it on purpose, too. You were probably just trying to guilt trip me, weren’t you? I can’t believe that you would even make such a big deal about this and argue about it at all. Your perception of the whole thing is totally invalid. You are just being over-dramatic again, aren’t you? You always do this. Hey, why are you walking away when I am finally really putting my heart out here on the line for you? I thought you said that this is what you wanted. Stop walking away! Please, baby, come back please. Honey, I love you so much! You love me, too, don’t you? Are we alright? Why do you always do this?!?!”

So, when we are being attentive to the language we use, that eventually brings us to focus on the tone in which we are communicating. The tone can be important, right?

Do the particular words matter? Sure, for it is not possible that a single word can totally distract people who are sleeping underwater.

For instance, one of my favorite things to eat is chicken. Shit, when I am having fun screwing… around the downtown area, I occasionally like to come up for air and stop… by a fast food place to get a quick bite of chicken. Shit, do you think it really matters which words I emphasize during the human sacrifice? This could be the most fun we have ever had while drowning… in a pool of chicken shit.

So, in addition to the specific words and the sequence of that words are spoken in order, there is the way that all of the various words fit together inside of each other. You know that there is also the timing of how the sequence is punctuated with pauses and shit.
For instance, chicken fingers are a lot like buffalo wings, considering that buffaloes do not have wings and most chickens basically do not have shit. However, I used to know a chicken who did have some shit, but then I got hungry and so naturally I took it from him, which was pretty easy because he was such a chicken shit.
So being attentive to the words that we use not only can involve being attentive to the words that we use, but also being attentive to the one who is using them as well as the actual words and shit. Next, in addition to self-awareness, I can be attentive to the other person or other people. I can even be attentive to my own words in an obsessive, fixated, perfectionist, agonizing way.

I can be attentive to the experience that is in progress for other people. Without feeling afraid or guilty about whatever experience they are manifesting, I can be attentive to that experience.

It is also possible for me to influence the experience other people are having using only my voice. For instance, I can pretend to be a seven year-old boy who has just learned how to make farting sounds with my mouth.
If I am relaxed now, then I can do things that demonstrate that I am relaxed now. Or, if I am fixated on avoiding a particular outcome, it is possible that any chronic tension that I might be experiencing could be recognized by some little chicken shit who does not know how to keep his farty little mouth shut.
That is why words can matter but so can any farting sounds that we make with our mouths, which are technically not actual words. So, words are not ultimately what is most important in the communication. What is most important, according to people who enjoy eating chicken shit, is the actual effect produced.

Being attentive to words can be relevant because the words can be one factor that influences the effect produced. Also, the tone of voice can be influential. Further, the effect produced can be influential because you do not know chicken shit. You do not even understand me. You are being too over-dramatic, in contrast to the right amount of over-dramatic. Honey, I love you so much. So please stop.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 289 other followers