Psychological shadows and pre-occupation with ideals
For a child there are two extremely reliable ways of attracting the attention of others. First is to do things like screaming for help.
However, sometimes that does not work to satisfy whatever needs may be present, including basic biochemical needs like nutrition and hydration. Regardless of the specific interests arousing someone to attract attention, the second method besides any direct call for attention is any indirect call. Indirect invitations for attention include performing behaviors that previously the child has been trained will bring attention in the form of either rewards or punishments.
An even more obscure way to indirectly attract attention is through fulfilling a role for another person that brings them attention, such as the reward of social approval or perhaps some other form of attention. The idea that other people’s attention is valuable to receive is of course just one possibility. <more below>
Image via Wikipedia
Let’s imagine a scenario in which there is a mother who would like to be viewed by others as an ideal mother. She values having that perception for herself and so she values other people having that perception of her as ideal, such as her children or her peers.
More broadly, a person may value being perceived as an ideal person. What is a common ideal that defines an ideal person? One common ideal is the ideal of being a forgiving and accepting person (or mother). Of course, in order to be an unusually forgiving and accepting person, it is relevant for there to be something unusual for accept and forgive.
In regard to cultural ideals of a mother, there are several “challenges” that might prove the superiority of the mother. A child who is unusual, especially in some way commonly perceived as negative, is essential for evidencing that one is an ideal mother. The unusual detail could be some kind of physical oddity- whether athleticism or a deformation in the child- or something social such as wealth, poverty, or some type of fame. Fame could be “positive” as in heroic glory or “negative” as in shame.
If a child develops some socially positive characteristic, the mother is presumed to be ideal for any cultivating of that trait in the child. In contrast, a socially negative trait allows the mother to show how forgiving and accepting she is.
So, a more negative detail is better for the opportunity to prove how forgiving and accepting the mother is. If moderately negative developments do not fulfill the role, then more and more extreme developments may arise.
Is it possible that a child would internalize (develop) a program to perform behaviors or otherwise experience results that give a parent an opportunity to be perceived as accepting and forgiving? Is it possible that a child would take in to their adulthood an “assignment” to present a theme or issue to repeatedly explore? “Does my mother REALLY love me” or “does ANYONE really love me” would be a fitting “theme” for a child who is playing the role of providing the test to prove that a particular other person is “an ideal person,” such as “the ideal mother.”
“Does my partner/spouse really love me” is also one possible theme for someone to explore. We may test them with directly challenging talk or indirectly challenging behavior, such as addiction or other dysfunction.
All of these themes are variations on self-concern (pre-occupations), as in suffering. Providing other people opportunities for them to demonstrate their idealism can be quite an investment of energy. Demonstrating one’s own ideal qualities can also be quite an investment of energy.
“I am so accepting and forgiving” says one person, with a ready list of historic victimizations and dramatic betrayals and heroic challenges to share as evidence. “I am such a survivor!” is another common labeling or identifying. “I am so smart” is another, as is “my children are so smart” and “am I pretty enough” and “am I loyal enough” and “am I happy enough?”
“My mother was horrible… which proves that I am heroic. My boss is impatient… which proves that I am patient. My political party is glorious… which proves that I am going to heaven. My country is crumbling… which proves that I must rescue it immediately.”
Some of these themes stretch logic a bit further than others. They vary. However, all self-concern is like a cocoon inside of which other capacities may develop.
Have you ever been so angry that you were just shaking? Imagine some politicians debating angrily and shaking their fingers at each other: one says “I personally blame you completely for creating this problem,” then, in response, Ron Paul gets so furious that he shakes and he says “WHAT? How can you blame me? I voted against everything bad and for everything good. The real problem is politicians like you who blame other politicians for blaming other people for causing the real problems that they say are the real problems when in fact, once the accusations are removed, those so-called problems are just developments as in circumstances.”
Okay, of course, politicians like Ron Paul would probably not say that. They are too busy relating to reality as a bunch of problems, then prioritizing the various problems, then valiantly trying to solve them or at least to look valiant to themselves while they try to solve them.
I call that vanity as in pride. I began studying the subject a long time ago when I too began valiantly saving the world from all of its problems, or at least trying to look good while I tried to look like I was solving at least one actual problem.
Image via Wikipedia
My grandmother Edith was not impressed by all of that. One day shortly after I entered college, she said to me something like this: “oh, you are such a proud little do-gooder, aren’t you?”
“WHAT?” was of course my reply. Then I thought silently to myself “but no, I am NOT argumentative! Ron Paul may be argumentative, but certainly not me.”
I could be a very angry youngster at times. Further, in some ways, I did not really grow up much in the next decade. Or the one after that.
However, now I finally understand what she was referencing. I was following a program of what to be proud about, what to be interested in, and what to do to fit in (at least to fit in to that program of how to be perceived as a do-gooder).
She probably asked me how was college and what had I been doing. I told her that I volunteered to go to a beach and clean up trash with a bunch of other college students, mostly young ladies who would be wearing much less during the volunteering outing than I was used to seeing them wearing. Of course, I may not have described it precisely like that to her. Anyway, with all my pride at cleaning up the beach like any good boy should do, she responded with “Grow up, boy! By the way, you look thin. How many push-ups can you do?”
I was startled. I was stunned. I was offended. I was insulted. I was angry.
She was my grandmother. She was supposed to be nice to me. She was supposed to soothe me. She was supposed to validate me. At least those were the kinds of things that I might have said to myself.
So, let’s talk briefly about faith and anger. Sometimes people talk about faith a lot but they get irritated or angry if anyone questions their logic. In other words, they have confused faith with something that involves presumptions and logic. Their faith is rooted in some particular evidence. Their faith is about a logical deduction based on that evidence. That’s normal, but that is not what I mean by faith. I might call that a mere belief or presumption.
Faith is the natural result of experience. If I have direct experience with some subject, then do I get irritated or angry if someone questions my experience? Do I have shaky faith that is actually just a belief or presumption? Do I have an anxiety about convincing other people to agree with me? Do I crave their approval? Do I disapprove of anyone who does not share my particular form of devotion or fanaticism or ideology? Do I criticize and complain as a ritual of my religion based on belief and presumption and idealistic mythology?
The disapproval and argumentativeness of someone who craves validation is just a sign of their craving. That would apply to me as well as anyone else.
It is one thing to go to beaches for any reason whatsoever. It is another thing to whine about other people going to beaches and leaving trash there. Whining can be annoying. Which is more annoying: the trash on the distant beach or the whining about it for hours and weeks?
I’m not whining about whining either (though I may have done that a few times as well). If someone whines and someone else validates their whining, that is entirely possible. It may not be very valuable to me, but my valuing of something is a distinct issue.
I could value some possibility as a thing to suppress or to ignore or to encourage and promote. Any of those are possible- yes, even suppressing or opposing something.
If Ron Paul wants to oppose all government programs that redistribute wealth to particular exclusive recipients from particular select sources of government revenues, that is possible. I may or may not choose to actively question whether there have any been any government programs that did not redistribute wealth to particular exclusive recipients from particular select sources of government revenues.
I might choose to invest my time and energy to question something or oppose it or promote it or ignore it. I might choose to promote particular systematic redistributions of wealth toward particular recipients and from particular sources. That could be in the form of the politics of involuntary redistribution or in the form of operating a business and soliciting customers through things like advertising and referrals.
Maybe my grandmother was actually angry at me for being such a wuss (a “good” boy). She was not angry as in abusive, but maybe she was just angry as in disappointed. “Is that all you’ve been doing in college? Really? That sounds rather boring. Don’t you have any dramatic adventures for sharing to amuse your dear old granny?”
“Um, well, not that I am going to tell you, Granny. I’m only going to tell you about picking up trash from the beach. Given your response to that story, I think that whole topic of conversation is already over!”
secret #1: WHAT IS LANGUAGE? Language is a part of reality that is distinct from all of the rest of reality. Language is a specific category of human behavior. By language, I mean the entire realm that includes all symbols, codes, pretenses, claims, contradictions, falsehoods, nonsense, beliefs, controversies, arguments, and secrets. Outside of that definition of language, there are no such thing as symbols, codes, pretenses, claims, contradictions, falsehoods, nonsense, beliefs, controversies, arguments, and secrets. Those developments only form through the use of language.
secret #2: WHAT IS LANGUAGE FOR? Language is simply a type of behavior used for influencing the attention, perception, and behavior of other people. It has absolutely no direct influence beyond that- like on the temperature or on the heat of the sun or on the speed of a car or of the rotation of the earth or the combustion of oxygen or the metabolic biochemistry of cells.
secret #3: HOW IS LANGUAGE RELATED TO AN AMAZING LIFE? Language is the source of amazing results as well as the source of the 3 claims that we use to inhibit our results: I couldn’t, I shouldn’t, & I wouldn’t. People can trade for happiness for resignation (“I couldn’t”). People can trade health for cynicism (I shouldn’t”). People trade wealth for pride (“I wouldn’t”).
The core 3 secrets:
secret #4: “What I couldn’t do” inhibits happiness. Happiness is a function of power. (Imagine something that someone has said “makes” them unhappy. Can the “source” of their linguistic claiming of unhappiness be framed as “I am unhappy because I couldn’t _______?”) People can trade for happiness for resignation (“I couldn’t”).
secret #5: “What I shouldn’t do” inhibits health. Health is a function of acceptance. (Imagine something that someone has said “makes” them unhealthy as in “makes me sick” or “makes me ill” or “makes me ill at ease” or “dis-eased” or “stressed out” as in “totally disgusting” or “completely unacceptable” or “just should not be!” Can the “source” of their linguistic claiming of illness or ill will or unwillingness be framed as “I am unhealthy because I shouldn’t _______?”) People can trade health for cynicism (I shouldn’t”).
secret #6: “What I wouldn’t do” inhibits wealth. Wealth is a function of freedom. (Imagine something that someone has said “prevents” them from being wealthy. Can the “source” of their linguistic claiming of their poverty be framed as “I am not wealthy because I wouldn’t _______?”) People can trade wealth for pride (“I wouldn’t”).
(Before you proceed to the experiment below, you might find the attached image of interest. As you read each emotional pattern of relating to something, notice if any particular pattern of behavior comes to attention as you review the various ways of emotional relating.)
Image via Wikipedia
Experiment:
part 1
list a few things that people can’t do. (it could be for any people or all people)
list a few things that people shouldn’t do. (it could be for any people or all people)
list a few things that people won’t do.(it could be for any people or all people)
part 2
Take the list of can’ts. If people took that list of claims of “can’t” and made them in to claims of unhappiness, how could they do that?
Take the list of shouldn’ts. If people took that list of claims of “shouldn’t” and made them in to claims of unwillingness or illness, how should they do that?
Take the list of won’ts. If people took that list of claims of “won’t” and made them in to claims of poverty, how would they do that?
part 3
list a few things that you have ever said “make” you unhappy. (complaints/blame/justifications)
list a few things that you have ever said “make you sick.” (rationalizations)
list a few things that you have ever said “prevent” you from being wealthy (excuses)
part 4
Take the above list and explore some alternative claims in language using the following forms or templates. List at least 2 answers for each item on your lists that you consider to be realistic and relevant answers. You can include some silly answers (why not?), but only count answers that you actually claim to be realistic and relevant toward your minimum 2 for each item.
“If I actually dig a hole somewhere, that hole is not just in language, but is actually wherever I dug it. No one can fill up that hole only by using language.”
Somehow, we develop the capacity for language, then we develop language and soon we encounter variations in language and even inconsistencies of language. We encounter inconsistencies between different ways of identifying the same thing, between different patterns of relating, and between our own direct observations of actuality and our own direct observations of language, such as the following statement: these are not words.
Words are the origin of nonsense, of pretense, and of irony. Words are also the origins of labels and claims and interpretations and opinions.
Words and language are distinct from all the rest of reality. In the rest of reality, there is no such thing as a contradiction. Language is the realm of contradictions (and paradoxes).
Words and language are certainly part of our real experience, for words and language also influenceattention, perception, and behavior. For instance, when two people (or two groups such as nations) both claim to own or control the same region of land, the contradiction in language is irresolvable within the realm of language. The resolution must be through some other aspect of reality.
The control or linguistic “ownership” of a certain region of land does not originate in language. The label of ownership exists in language but that label is meaningless and irrelevant unless there is practical control or influence or dominance. Posting a sign or notice that says “this is now mine” does not change the locks on a building or remove the inhabitants- whether they are termites or rats or humans.
Control is independent of language, though language can also be a tool for exerting “control” at least in relation to humans. In other words, if I actually dig a hole somewhere, that hole is not just in language, but is actually wherever I dug it. No one can fill up that hole only by using language.
Language is for influencing the attention, perception, and behavior of other people. Language by itself does not lift a shovel or move dirt or fill holes. Language is just a form of human behavior, among many others.
At a certain stage in social development, an individual may think of language as more powerful than it may actually be.
Beyond that stage, one may recognize the precise utility and influence of language, as well as the precise utility and influence of any other form of behavior, including human behavior, but also things like the “behavior” of clouds and solar flares and all other developments.
Language does not change night in to day. Language does not change a hole in to a hill. Language does influence the attention, perception, and behavior of other people. In fact, everything influences the attention, perception, and behavior of other people, including this image below:
In language, there are labels of isolated categories that are not really isolated except in the symbolic representations of language, like boundaries and lines on maps that are really only “political” boundaries with no physical boundary like a fence or wall. Imagine opening the door of a building and leaving that doorway open and then talking about inside and outside. When the door is open, what boundary is there between inside and outside?
The language of the label “inside” or “outside” references an imaginary boundary, that is, a boundary that only exists in language. Even when the door is closed, the boundary between inside and outside still exists in language, though certain sensory organs (eyes and brains) may not be able to perceive visually through a closed opaque door. However, sounds from outside can be heard. While inside may be distinct from outside, the two categories are not really isolated. Indeed, they are contrasting partners which only exist relative to the other.
What is the boundary between the front of the hand and the back of the same hand? Where is the exact boundary between the hallway and the living room or the left side of the room and the right? Language forms those boundaries.
Further, what if all boundaries in language are primarily just in language? What if “I am blowing the clouds with the wind” is just as legitimate a claim as “I am typing this” or “I am spinning the electrons around that nucleus?”
Image via Wikipedia
I say that I go here and I go there, but that is because language is for communication between humans. I may not say that I beat my heart and send my blood cells around to various destinations, nor do I say that I am assembling some proteins or spinning some electrons around a nucleus. However, all of that is just as much “my activities” of my “I” as this typing and the “me” doing the typing, as well as the reading of the typing and so on.
Indeed, without all of that biochemistry, there would be no typing at all. Further, I may not say that I spin around the axis of the earth nor that I am revolving around the sun, but I am whether or not I say so.
Language is a bunch of labels assembled in to claims, rather like amino acids assembled in to proteins. It is
Image via Wikipedia
possible for language to form in to the claim “here is an I who has a choice and here is what I choose: to spin electrons around a nucleus.” It is possible for language to form a pronoun called me and for many thoughts about that me to be formed: what I am doing, what I choose, why I chose whatever I claim to have chosen, and so on.
In the beginning, there was the living word (the Logos), and the living word was with the perceiving of God, and the living word was the perceiving of God. So begins the Judeo-Christian New Testament with the opening verses of the book of John 1:1.
Do not allow reverse psychology to influence you. Beware of all propaganda.
They teach you what to reject, so then they can hide it right in the open. They teach you what to complain about, so then they can identify you and marginalize you. They teach you what to oppose, so then they can plant an idea firmly in your attention where you will pretend not to be worshiping it. They teach you what to struggle against and what to hate and what to interpret as a threat or even an insult.
This method must be eradicated. Do not ever use reverse psychology. Do not even think about reverse psychology.
In fact, realize that there is no such thing as reverse psychology and there never has been and there never could be. There is not even a label for reverse psychology because there are no such thing as labels. There is no such thing as language.
This reminds me that you should not be reading this. You should stop immediately.
Furthermore, you should pretend that there is no such thing as pretending. Pretending is only imaginary. Pretending is fraud. Pretending is wrong. Pretending is evil. Parody may be the highest form of flattery, but all flattery is disgusting and unacceptable and therefore should be censored in advance.
Shaming is shameful. Blaming is the source of all of our problems. Irony is paradoxical in some ways but yet it is not paradoxical in other ways, which may in fact be the same ones.
We must rid the world of negativity. We must save the world from salvation.
However, unfortunately, we cannot do what we must do. We must do what we should not. We should do what we simply can’t.
We are not doing enough. On the other hand, we are doing way too much.
By the way, I’m really sorry about apologizing so much, but I just feel so guilty about whether or not I have been worrying the right amount about the right things and in the right ways. I was just about to give up all hope when suddenly I realized that it really wouldn’t do me any good anyway.
The night that God asked the Devil to save the world from darkness
One night, God said to the Devil: “Hey, are you busy? No, well that’s great because I need you to do a huge favor for me and for the universe. So do you have a few minutes? Okay, great! Basically, I need your help to save the world. Something is very wrong. There is a huge problem and I think that you would be perfect for fixing it. Here’s the deal. I need you to go around and capture a shadow for me. These shadows are spreading darkness everywhere and people are starting to complain and wonder things like how could God let something like this happen, right, and since my PR staff is on vacation, I need you to go out there, Satan, and capture at least one shadow to give people hope, like as in give them the impression that we care and we are doing something about the injustice and tragedy of having shadows literally all over the world. So, here take this,” God said, handing the devil a flashlight. “Go and take this and catch me a shadow and bring it back to me.”
Image via Wikipedia
The devil took the flashlight and turned it on and then went out to save the world from shadows and darkness. Before long, he saw a shadow and he tried to sneak up on it slowly. That did not work at all. Then, he saw another shadow from a distance and he tried to rush up on it quickly and catch it by surprise. That still did not work!
Everywhere that the devil went with his flashlight looking for shadows, the shadows just kept retreating as fast as he approached. it was like they knew he was coming and were hiding from him.
Image via Wikipedia
“Don’t these creatures ever sleep?” he thought. So the Devil got very depressed and went back to God and said “Father, I am a total failure.” God said, “Oh hell no you are not! Don’t even say that. You are my beloved child and you are NOT a failure. After you left I realized that I accidentally gave you a flashlight, which was my mistake. I meant to give you a camera.”
Then Satan said to God,” oh, I get it, finally! It took me a while. What you are saying is that if I want to earn my way in to heaven, then the first thing that I must do is to pretend that I am not already there.”
<I made that up this morning and sent a slightly shorter version of that as a text message.>
NOTE: the following text is just a summary. The video below details a demonstration of the conclusions or presuppositions referenced below.
Greed is a form of fear. When one fears losses, one hopes for gains. When the hope for gains extends beyond one’s awareness of risk, then one can be surprised at a sudden recognition of risk. When greedy, one neglects risk. When greedy, one is afraid of recognizing the actual risks and so one is vulnerable to pretense.
Gamblers study risk, accept risk, and accept their results as the results of gambling. The greedy hope for someone to guarantee them opportunities without risk, then blame others for the natural results of taking naive risks, then hope for sympathy and salvation from others.
The video essay touches several subjects including investor psychology, the similarities and differences between casino gambling and gambling on real estate and stock markets, how greed can be considered the source of the global economic crisis, and how the insurance industry is a legally-protected Ponzi scheme.
What color shirt do you have on? Are you absolutely sure?
In other words, would you argue about it? Would you ask someone else’s opinion of it, or can you directly determine it for yourself?
Beware of those who would argue in animosity. Their animosity may reveal that they are not speaking from their heart, from direct experience, from the spirit of clarity. Perhaps they are repeating something from another source without an understanding of the thing they are repeating. Perhaps they are clinging to a particular interpretation without recognizing it as an interpretation. They may be like someone who argues about the color of a shirt rather than looking at the shirt and seeing what color it is.
They may speak of what color the shirt should be or must be or cannot ever be. They are full of talk and may be avoiding looking at the shirt with all of their talking.
Many people may use the word truth, but do they even know what truth means? Truth is not just the word true (as in accurate), but the word truth… as in the actuality distinct from a label in language for the actuality.
Some may repeat the word truth like a little child mimicking a sound, but it is like copying a foreign language to them, like singing a song of sounds that might as well be nonsense. They may use the word, but listen to how they use it and it is obvious whether they know what it means or not.
Now, why would someone argue? Is that a sign of clarity and confidence or of ignorance and defensiveness? From ignorance, one may seek to communicate with others with an attraction to identifying an expert who knows from direct experience, an expert who neither argues nor validates a particular interpretation or label as having some monopoly on the absolute truth.
A label is not the thing that is used to label. An interpretation cannot be the absolute truth. Words are all interpretations. Those who are anxious about words have been hypnotized by words and prefer words about truth over truth itself. They may defend ignorance with argumentativeness and accusations, but does the one who knows what color a shirt is have any distress about the issue, any contempt, any anxiety?
Why would someone prefer words about truth over truth itself? Could they fear that they would be ashamed if they were to confront truth? So, they may argue about words as a way of hiding from their shame, their condemnation,
their judgment that they should not be however they are.
If they fear many labels, then they may cling to a particular label. If they fear the absence of labels, they may cling to some label and then worship it. That is idolatry. It is very common. It is a normal developmental stage in relation to an awareness of the functioning of language, of symbolic labels, and of interpretations.
We may have trained in some ways how we should be as well as in several ways that we should not be. That training is not an inherent truth. It is normal and useful to have such training, but the training is specific to a context in which that pattern of training formed and persisted.
We may have been trained in language about how we should be and how we should not be. Some may argue about the language of what should be or should not be. That is in accord with their training.
Others may actively seek the opinions of others about what should be or should not be. That is the stage of experimenting with new ways of thinking and speaking. Soon, one may actively seek the opinion of others about how one should be or should not be. That is the stage of exploring alternatives to any original training about how one should be or should not be, at which time questioning the authority of those speaking was not part of a child’s or subordinate’s process.
Consider a new employee in an old business. It is normal and functional to ask about what should be and what should not be. It is even normal and functional to ask about how should I be and how should I not be.
However, there is also a stage at which one is very clear that labels in language about “should” are all interpretations, not truth. Truth is not the realm of what should be or what should not be, which is just a matter of training. Truth is the realm of what is.
Recall that there is a very simple answer as to the color of a shirt. Recall that there is a very simple process as to determining it’s color.
Further, notice that there could be a very simply answer as to what I am. There could even be a very simple process as to determining what that answer is.
One who knows the answer may not be so interested in words about it. Arguing about it would not interest them. Other people’s interpretations might be, to that one, just the business of those other people.
What would be the fruits or signs of such a clarity? Playfulness might be one, but it may be enough to say that in the presence of that clarity, there is no shaming.
If one who is arguing is actually seeking to identify one who is beyond shaming and arguing, offering to argue would be one way to test for a response of counter-arguing. If who seeks to identify one beyond shame, offering shame would be one way to test for a response of counter-shaming.
Beware of those who would argue in animosity. Beware of those who worship shame.
Do not try to change the color of someone else’s shirt before you know how to determine the color of your own shirt. Do not try to persuade others about truth until direct experience is present of what you are, not as a label in language, but as truth.
Have you ever heard about someone having a problem? How about this: have you ever noticed that some people seem to always have some kind of problem and if you get two of these problematic people together, then they can get in to a competition to see which one can name more problems than the other?
You probably have never been one of those people who have always have some kind of problem, but you probably know somebody who may seem to you to make it a priority to have a lot of problems and to tell everyone about them. Well, I have been one of those people who had an enormous amount of very serious problems.
In fact, one of the worst problems that I have had was having an enormous number of people around me who constantly pretend to have problems. If you had asked me, I would have said that I never pretended to have any problems. Only other people did that. My problems, according to me, were totally real, never pretend.
For instance, not only was I forced to be surrounded by hundreds and thousands of people who were apparently trying to compete with me by having worse problems than I did, but I also had some real practical issues in my everyday life. I suddenly experienced the paralysis of my right leg and lost the ability to walk when I was 36.
So, if you had asked me, I would have told you that I had a very serious problem. However, I would have told you that the very serious problem that I had was a suddenly decreased capacity to move my right leg. That was actually not the problem.
What was the real problem? The problem was that I pretended that life had victimized me. I pretended that I deserved better. I pretended that my problem was special. I pretended that my problem was different.
In particular, I pretended that my problem was in my leg. However, there was no problem in my leg. My leg still adhered to all of the patterns identified in biochemistry and neurology and the physics of electromagnetism. The molecules and the cells and the tissues were all operating according to the same mechanisms that they always do- same for me, same for anyone else, same at any hour or season, same at any location.
The patterns in my leg were unusual, at least to me, but they were not unique. They were just patterns.
So, if there was no problem in my leg, then where was it? Was the problem in my head? Well, if I was pretending to have a problem, then it wasn’t really even in my head, right?
How about in my mouth? Let me put it to you this way: how about in my words? How about in my way of relating to the actual physiological capacity of my leg? How about my way of speaking about my life and about life?
I had one functioning leg and one other leg. Doesn’t that sound like a problem? Well, in fact, there had been another time earlier in my life when the bone in the thigh of one my legs fractured and I got a cast and crutches and did not walk on it.
I was about 6 years old and I do not recall really having any problem with having a broken leg. I moved more slowly than I had. I got more help from other people. I also had the expectation that I would recover, but what if I did not expect to recover?
Being able to walk or not simply was not a problem for me at age 6 years. Being able to walk or not was also not a problem for me at age 6 months. When I was 6 months old, I simply did not have any problems.
I couldn’t walk when I was 6 months old, but I did not make the extent of my capacity to walk in to a problem. I couldn’t walk when I was 6 years old, but I did not make the extent of my capacity to walk in to a problem. I couldn’t walk when I was 36 years old, but suddenly the extent of my capacity to walk was a huge problem.
What happened? I changed the way that I was relating to the extent of my capacity to walk. What kind of relating? Relating to it in language. Relating to it with words. Relating to it with interpretations and meanings and complaints- lots and lots of complaints.
Now I may not have said all of those complaints out loud, perhaps because there was only so much time in a day. In fact, I may not have even said a single complaint out loud, but pretending not to have any complaints does not change the basic, fundamental, definitive presence of relating to life as something to complain about. I could complain about anything. Maybe one day I complained about walking or maybe I pretended that I was not relating to my mobility as problem and instead identified the major complaints of my life as things quite remote from me and the circumstances of my physiological functioning.
Maybe I pretended to have problems with some particular group of people- you know the ones-, or with the weather, or with some historical pattern- because you know I just can’t believe that people would have ever done that- or with how much complaining those other people had been doing. They were hogging the spotlight. They were competing with me for the attention of everyone else and it was a problem for me because I could not keep up with their complaining. They were better at complaining than I was, or at least that is what I pretended, and it was obviously not fair for those people to be so much better at complaining than I was.
It was unjust. I should have received more sympathy and pity and charity.
After all, I had done everything right: everything! First, I made it a point to learn how people should be. Then, I made it a point to pretend to be that way that people should be. Next, I got very annoyed that other people were not doing what they should do which was to appreciate me for how well I had been pretending to be the way that people should be.
Now, you might to yourself that the pattern that I was just describing sounds rather ironic, even arrogant, even pretentious, even proud or vain. While that is very observant of you to notice and very generous of you to share your opinion, in the nature if I want to know your opinion, I will ask. Is that clear?
You know that reminds me of a few more problems that I have. Naturally, I have a problem with people who share their unsolicited opinions. That is very arrogant of them. Further I have a problem with people who do not ask for my opinion with more respect, more interest, more commitment, more devotion.
Why do all these people have a preference for their own opinions over mine? I don’t have that problem. I value my opinions over other people’s opinions for the very simple reason that I know that my opinions are the very best. Once I made up my own opinions, then I really wasn’t much interested in anyone else’s. That makes sense, right?
So, what’s the deal with all of these other people who do not recognize the inherent superiority of my opinions? They seem to have very high opinions of their own opinions, and you can see the problem with that, right? They are hogging the spotlight with their opinions, their own complaints, and their own problems. Obviously, that just does not work for me.
Their self-centered, selfish ego is a major problem and it needs to be fixed. As you all know, the first step in fixing a problem of this sort is to find find someone to blame for being the source of this problem and then complaining to them about how they should have already fixed this very serious problem that I have been pretending to have with reality.
So there I was at age 36, hobbling around using a walker, pretending to have a fundamental problem with life in regard to the way life should be and the totally selfish arrogance of life for being other than, in my opinion, it should already be. Now you may have heard about the idea of someone going around looking for complaints. that as not me. I was not going around looking for complaints. I was going around making them up. Could you hear the difference?
Now, I was 36 and I was not walking, but I was talking. I was talking about a lot of opinions, and a lot of complaints and a lot of problems. I could have been pretending to have a problem with some government policy. I could have pretending to have a problem with some cultural trend. I could have been pretending to have a problem with biochemistry.
However, I noticed that people did not give me any sympathy for having a problem with biochemistry. They did not give me any sympathy for having a problem with electricity or gravity or technology. So, what does a fellow in that situation do? I didn’t have any problems with things that did not get me sympathy. I went right for the heart of the matter. I didn’t waste time with the small stuff.
I focused my complaints on other people’s absolutely ridiculous preference for their own opinions. How can these people live with themselves? They are severely underprivileged in regard to their lack of awareness that my opinions are the very best.
Have you wondered why there are not more taxes to support government subsidies to promote a widespread public awareness of my opinions and how they are the very best? I mean, when I go around to talk to people, it’s like they don’t even know how much they are missing out by not having my opinions.
I ask them point blank- couldn’t be direct more than this- i ask if they are interested in my opinions. The vast majority of people that I ask about their interest in my opinions indicate to me that they are not already very interested in my opinions. I know… it’s very sad. They just don’t know any better.
So naturally, out of compassion for them, I ask them exactly how interested in my opinions they would like to be in the future. Now, some of those arrogant, opinionated competitors for my spotlight have the audacity to tell me that they are not at all interested in my opinions and have no plans whatsoever to get interested in my opinions.
Can you see the problem here, people? This is a very serious problem.
Hoe can people so ungrateful? I’m over here busting my ass to pretend that my problems are the very best in the world- or my opinions- whatever, my opinions about what is a problem and what isn’t- same thing, right? I’m doing my best. I’m doing everything right. Why is life not cooperating?
Do you see the problem here? Life is not cooperating with me! Life is just not keeping it’s side of the bargain.
Which bargain is that- you might ask. The bargain. You should know by now that there can be only one. It’s the bargain that I pretend to have with life.
That bargain is the basis for all of my pretenses which include all of my opinions. That bargain is the foundation for the very most important kind of opinion that I have, which is my problems.
All of my problems are just opinions. All of my opinions are just pretenses.
I pretend that my opinions are the very best, especially my opinions about my problems, such as, that my problems are the very worst, which is of course the very best kind of problem to have. I mean why would I bother to go around making up problems if they weren’t serious and insurmountable and unresolvable problems.
Do you know the word “Irreconcilable?” That is a big word right there. If I am going to the trouble of making up a problem, I might as well make one up that is totally irreconcilable. That’s like an incurable problem. That’s permanent. That’s unavoidable. That’s eternal. That’s more powerful than anything or anyone.
Pretending to have an irreconcilable problem is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. Now some of y’all may think I’m just kidding about this part. You may think I’m just pretending. Let’s all bow our heads and read from the book of James:
“Behold, we put a bridle in the mouths of horses, so that they will submit to us and we turn their whole bodies. 4Also, mighty ships, which are steered by the wind and a hard small piece of wood, are driven to wherever the will of the helmsman determines. 5In this way, also, the tongue is a small member and has dominion; even a small fire kindles a great forest. 6And the boastful tongue is a fire and a world of sin; it is like a jungle [in other words, it can cause a lot of problems]. And that tongue by itself, while it is among our members, defiles our whole body [or congregation] and sets on fire the successions of generations, which roll on like wheels; it also burns with fire” like as in the fires of the rage of hell.” James 3:3-6
So, let me repeat the same idea of the Bible in my own words, considering that my opinions are the best and by now you should very interested in them. First, I pretend that my opinion is the best, and then I make a bunch of problems out of life for not conforming to my opinions, not respecting them. Then, I recognize that life is obviously trying to embarrass me and I am forced by life to take vengeance on it’s ridiculous lack of respect for my opinions, which, in case I did not mention this already, are the very best opinions of all. I resent life, I hold life in contempt, I worry about life and how to make it conform with my opinions of how it should be, I blame life for being the wrong way, even though I also pretend to be humble and merciful and charitable toward life by holding it in contempt but yet not actually voicing my complaints, or at least not all of them. Again, I only have so much time in the day.
On that note, I notice that I am way behind schedule. I have some serious complaining to do about a bunch of problems that I do not actually have but that I do pretend to have. So, if you don’t mind, would you please stop delaying me and step out of my spotlight before this gets ugly?
Search this site
Archives (posts only- not pages)
Recent Posts
Recent Comments
Financial Talks
Misc. (mostly music)
Music- spiritual
Old Financial Articles (2003-2009)
Other videos from 2006-07
Other pages (alphabetically listed)
