Posts Tagged ‘hysteria’

Making friends with the hysterias of confusion, grief, shame, & blame

November 19, 2014

In the course of human events, people may notice preferences and even expectations. One of the most common ways to notice the presence of an expectation is when something else happens other than what was expected.

In contrast, when nothing is expected and something unfamiliar happens, there may be surprise and curiosity and, if there is much interest, learning. But when something is expected and does not happen, that can be quite different.

Instead of ignorance simply being replaced with the new stimulus or perception, when there is already an expectation, that is quite distinct from ignorance. The expectation implies that there is already interest. (If someone is not interested in something, then why form an expectation about it?)

Whenever an expectation is violated (which is inevitable), then there can be confusion. Note that confusion cannot arise without a pre-existing expectation that is erroneous. Total ignorance can lead to surprise, but not to confusion. (Surprises can be scary or fun or many other things.)

Only expectation can lead to confusion: “something is not how I expected it and I do not know why.” When there is an expectation plus an awareness of the violation of some expectation but no further clarity yet, that is called confusion. Someone may not even know which expectation has been violated.

That confusion can lead to seeking clarification and the refining of the expectations. However, that confusion can also lead in to a very distinct pathway, which we will briefly explore now.

I expect something. Something else happens. I am confused. (In other words, I notice that I was already confused about what would happen and then later I suddenly recognized my own prior confusion / erroneous expectation.)

But what next? How do I relate to my own confusion (my error / inaccuracy)? Is it okay to experience occasional confusion? Is it “to be expected?”

Is it ever overwhelming? Is it ever terrifying? Is it ever embarrassing?

Sometimes, an experience of confusion (from an unfulfilled expectation or violated expectation) may lead to embarrassment. Embarrassment is related to shame. That means that I experience fear about one or more other people’s perceptions of me and their behavioral reactions to me (such as violent attack, social shunning, or other punishments).

What next then? Do I withdraw (flee)? What if that simple response to stress is not available? How else could I promote safety?

Do I fight (to promote safety)? Do I freeze (to promote safety)? Do I fake (to promote safety)?

A common reflex for someone who is confused (and then embarrassed about it) is to cast blame. Blame can have an element of antagonism (as in a fight response to the fear / shame).

Blame is a type of complaint: “the only reason that ___ is because the weather is so unusually ______!”

That is basically a request for attention and sympathy. So is this: “the only reason that ______ is because of whoever I blame for this confusing and embarrassing development… and who I blame is ___!”

That is a totally understandable reaction. “I am so confused by the results of my actions that I am embarrassed and so in an effort to attract attention and sympathy and perhaps even assistance, I am blaming ________!”

“Other people should be more _____!”

“I should not have to ______!”

“Do you want to know what I think of that person? ______ is just such a ______!”

Now that I have presented some common patterns in language, you may notice that your behavior may have included some of these statements. (If so, then you are probably over the age of 2.) In fact, you may have noticed quite a few other people who are also over the age of 2, right?

To review, people (by the age of 2) will form expectations and then inevitably some of those get violated and so then people occasionally get confused (and perhaps ashamed about being socially witnessed as confused). That shame can lead to them casting blame.

Blame is a classic coping mechanism in the stages of grieving / learning. Blame can be a form of denial (as in a distraction from the underlying embarrassment or the underlying expectation that was not fulfilled).

Further, blame can lead to resentment, antagonigm, contempt, and lots of arguing: “I think that who is really to blame is not ____, but instead is __________. How can you even be so hysterical to suggest that _______ or that ________? You might as well be saying that _____?!?!?”

All of that is called hysteria. It is still a type of fear and a subset of shame. It is a defense mechanism in the realm of “I do not yet want to simply admit that I expected ________ and instead what actually happened was ______.”

So, how do people relate to the reality that expectations exist and can be violated? What about that confusion can arise, then embarrassment? What about that hysterical blame can arise and then hysterical defenses of the hysterical blame?

What about that sometime around the age of 2, most people develop the capacity to engage in arguments that may appear silly to outsiders? What about that some people continue those arguments for decades, even frequently triggering resentment and contempt so as to justify withdrawal from at least one person who is so unpredictable “because I refuse to update my own expectations in accord with their actual behaviors? I mean… why should I have to!?!?”

Or, maybe someone just seems too erratic for me at a particular time. Maybe my interest in them is not great enough to continue interacting with them because I am not ready to learn that fast. Maybe interacting with them is so challenging to my pre-existing expectations that I can only tolerate them in small doses. “That pesky pest is so annoying!”

If was simply bored, I would not be interested enough to argue, would I? People only argue for decades about things that interest them in some way. Further, people only argue with someone for decades if that other person interests them in some way.

How do I relate to people (such as 2 year-olds) who may on occassion experience confusion, shame, blame, and so on? Do I withdraw from them because they are manifesting a behavioral pattern that I have been repressing? Do I push them away with criticisms and condescension?

If I have been repressing shame, then wouldn’t I flee from any display of shame that scares me? Wouldn’t I flee from anything that scares me? If what scares me is the display of shame, would I flee from whatever scares me?

Further, if for someone reason I was not successful in fleeing, then wouldn’t I attempt to push away the perceived source of stress? Wouldn’t I increase my own stress hormones and go from flight mode to fight mode?

The point is that hysteria is a natural part of life. Some of them last only briefly and some can last decades or even centuries.

Hysteria is a type of fear and the sub-types of hysteria can include grief (a fear about how someone will adapt to some loss or absence) as well as shame (a fear of imagined future punishments) and blame. Blame, when expressed, can lead to compensation and apology and so on. Or blame can lead to other outcomes.

Consider the idea that “____ simply should not exist.” That may already be a form of distressed hysteria, right?

What is so frightening about the possible existence of something to someone that they should say it should not exist? What shames are they attempting to hide, if any?

“Hysteria should not exist! How can all these people still act like 2 year-olds? I mean, seriously, how come they don’t have totally accurate expectations about reality like I do? This is the most frustrating thing ever!”

“I really just don’t understand how all of these people don’t have totally accurate expectations like I do? It’s like they are just freaking out over unfulfilled expectations and that is not what I expected and it is totally freaking me out!?!?!”

“Yeah, that was totally weird, isn’t it? Hey, come jump on this bed with me!”

Hysterias, Hoaxes, & Humor

October 18, 2014

Bob wrote that “Ebola is a hoax.” He was joking. He was making fun of hysteria.

Ebola is not a hoax. It is a real river in Africa. In the 1970s, some people died in the area near that river and then the way they died was named after the Ebola river.


Since then, an average of about one hundred people per year have died from the medical process called “Ebola” (at least that is what has been reported and publicized). Is that a lot of people? It is a lot more than a dozen, right?

I have seen reports showing that around 20,000 people commit suicide each year in the US. If you do not stop what you are doing right now to donate a few hours of your time every week to a campaign for suicide awareness & prevention, then you are probably… an American.

But back to the disease process called Ebola, it can allegedly be spread through very limited ways, like involving certain bodily fluids. In that respect, it is similar to the HIV virus & the medical label “A.I.D.S.”

But should people ever be skeptical of new information? What about skeptical of old, familiar presumptions?

I recently read medical research from 1991 establishing that simple breathing exercises were 100% effective in promoting the health (reducing the symptoms) of people with HIV/ AIDS. The same kind of exercises have “cured” people of asthma and panic attacks and many other diagnostic labels.

What is asthma? It is a process involving hyperventilation and a lack of oxygen in the brain cells.

In fact, when there is a lack of oxygen in brain cells, then that interferes with the brain’s ability to generate electromagnetic current (“energy”). So, there are a few consequences of a “starving” brain and also a few mechanisms for remedying that.

If someone is underwater with no oxygen-rich air to breathe, that could be a problem. However, the more common problem in modern medical contexts is that 90% of people do not have “enough” carbon dioxide in the bloodstream (from too much breathing AKA “mild” hyperventilation). I speculate that it is because they are chronically stressed/ tense/ scared/ traumatized/ zombified.

How is the “behavior” of asthma replaced with the behavior of “healthy breathing?” There are some simple exercises to gradually strengthen certain muscles and to slow down the breathing enough to raise the CO2 levels in the bloodstream. (Check out or for more info.)

Since 90% of people that were measured have been observed to breath at least twice as heavily as would be considered healthy or “normal,” that percentage is far too high (relative to the tiny fraction of people with HIV) to then say that HIV causes mild hyperventilation or that mild hyperventilation causes infecton by HIV. However, if all of the symptoms that are called AIDS disappear because of a simple short breathing exercise, then we can conceive of AIDS as one type of complication of mild hyperventilation (among many others).

As long as somone has adequate oxygen levels in the brain, what if the presence of the HIV virus itself has NO MEDICAL CONSEQUENCE? When oxygenation of brain cells is too low, there are a variety of problems- from mild to severe. However, because of the worship of diagnostic labels like AIDS and Ebola by the western masses, they may panic at the sound of those words. They do not conserve their breath. They do not keep calm.


So, when millions or billions of people have low oxygen levels in their brains, then isn’t it obvious that they make demons out of words? They worship AIDS like it is a living demon that possesses organisms and causes illness or death. Is that true? Or, is HIV just one of many viruses that, when an organism’s cells are starving for oxygen due to mild hyperventilation, the presence of the virus can complicate the already compromised health of that organism (such as by produing the EFFECT labeled as A.I.D.S.)?

(Note that the most well-established method for promoting health is called “the placebo effect,” which is basically a reference to any method of tricking a patient in to relaxing their normal level of distress/ hyperventilation. Why doesn’t the placebo effect work in every case? Because some people are not actively sabotaging their immune system with unconscious habits of compromised breathing.)


Here is where we start to get to some interesting issues involving language. People tend to think that there are fundamentally distinct realities, like the reality of carbon and the reality of oxygen. That is absolutely false.

Carbon can change in to something else. “Brain-dead chemists” may be unaware of physics, but it is still common knowledge amongst nuclear physicists that carbon is a relatively stable compound. By compound, I mean that it is made of smaller components.

“Carbon fusion” is the name for the process of carbon combining with hydrogen to form nitrogren. Nitrogen is not a carbohydrate made of some atoms of cabron and some atoms of hydrogen. When nitrogen is created out of carbon and hydrogen, the two stable compounds that were present at first are later absent. They transform in to a new form (creating a new compound through a significant re-organizing of the components of the two prior compounds).

First, there are two distinct stable fields of energy (forms of energetic matter) called carbon and of hydrogen. Then, the two distinct fields (compounds) “fuse” to make a new field (compound form) that displays certain qualities which chemists like to label as “nitrogen.”

So, nitrogen is just a label for one distinct stable pattern of… energy. By the way, the pattern of Nitrogen can shift to Oxygen, then back to Nitrogen, then back once again to Carbon.

the pattern of Nitrogen can shift to Oxygen, then back to Nitrogen, then back once again to Carbon

Next, where does most hydrogen on the earth come from? From solar radiation. Because we think of waves and particles as two isolated realities, we can get confused about the radiating of hydrogen, but that is actually kind of odd that it would be confusing.

Let’s simplify. Waves and particles can be thought of as two distinct types of behaviors.


Carbon and oxygen can be thought of as a two stable patterns of energy. If you add a certain kind of energy to carbon in a certain way, then the new pattern is called nitrogen.

In other words, there is nothing fundamental or eternal about the pattern of energy behaving as carbon. Carbon is just relatively stable (and Carbon-13 is distinct from Carbon-14 in part because one is more stable than the other).

Those two types of carbon decompose at different speeds (with different half-lives). By decompose, we mean to say that they are composites. They are compounds. They are stable compounds made of stable sub-atomic fields of energy (such as electrons, neutrons, and protons).

Matter is an aspect of these energetic fields (which are sometimes referenced as “particles”). Matter is not independent of energy (not a distinct isolated reality).

Mass refers to the amount of attractive energy (gravitational force) created by a certain field. So, we can measure the mass of an energetic field (such as an electron “particle” or an atom of Carbon or a molecule of Carbon Dioxide).

Mass is once again not a fundamental reality. Mass is an effect. Mass is even a process or “behavior” (as in an effect that causes other effects).

Let’s briefly address the issue of “particles” appearing and disappearing. For instance, when neutrinos and anti-neutrinos “appear and disappear,” that is because they are unstable fields (unstable patterns of behavior).

Carbon (such as “carbon-12″) is a much more stable field. So, carbon-12, carbon-13, and carbon-14 are similar but distinct aggregates of energy. They have similar yet distinct properties. For instance, the property of mass (or material stability) is slightly different for carbon-12, carbon-13, and carbon-14.

Again, mass is just a property of lasting energetic fields. Some energetic fields can last for a decade (if not disrupted) and other types of fields would never last for an entire second because they are so unstable.

All that finally brings me back to carbon dioxide. That is a label for a molecular compound made of one part carbon and two parts oxygen.

In other words, carbon dioxide always contains oxygen. They are not fundamentally distinct realities. The conceptual model of distinct realities is in fact hysterical (as in unintelligent or delirious).


There are a variety of dimensions, such as length, height, weight, density, temperature, and so on. There are also a variety of distinct perspectives, such as physics and anatomy.

When a biophysicist looks at living tissue, they might note “there is a pH of 6.94 in that tissue, which of course totally impairs the tissue’s ability to utilize oxygen because the electrons that are needed in order to form new electromagnetic valance bonds are too strongly attracted to the excess of protons (which we have measured to be excessive at the precise level known as a pH of 6.94).” That is a valid interpretation. That is very measurable. Every part of that statement can be tested for accuracy.

When someone who is not very competent in physics but very familiar with anatomy looks at the same tissue, they might say “that is a cancer tumor.” That is also a valid interpretation. However, it lacks the precision of the statement of the physicist.


If someone were to translate all of that in to a few different languages, all of that could still be valid constructions in language. They could all be useful in some way.

Every perspective is also limited. One perspective may be concise but vague. Another perspective may be precise in one aspect but misses a lot from the bigger picture.

The interpretation that produces the most profit for a business may not be the interpretation that promotes health with great efficiency. Each perspective naturally  creates interpretations (and mesaurements) that are in accord with the motives and presumptions of that perspective.

Modern medicine is reasonably effective at identifying various kinds of symptoms through precise testing. One possible problem with modern medicine is the low level of competence in the science of physiology. (Most MDs will be not just ignorant but confused by why a certain biochemical effect will happen 90% of the time but not the other 10%.)

If they simply did not know, that would be mere ignorance. However, if they thought that they knew something (something which observations were clearly contradicting), that misperception or misinterpretation produces confusion. That is precisely what happens that often leads to hysterical arguing: “Your little theory that cholesterol is made by the liver to promote health is insulting because it contradicts my vilification of cholesterol as a demon that must be worshiped with attention and then ritually attacked.”

An MD may experience confusion, shame about the confusion, and then hysteria. What appears simple to a physicist may be a mystery to an MD- or even confusing and threatening. Since biochemistry is really just a specific subcategory of physics, a physicist may look at the same data (or same patient) and instantly recognize what is “really” going on.  An MD may be “blinded” by their conceptual model of worshiping cholesterol as a demon.


So, in addition to the issue of incompetence in physiology amongst the medical priesthoods, there is also the related issue of arrogant hysteria. They may be distressed at the idea of learning something new, especially if it contrary to some religious dogma that they have believed and also have publicized for decades (sincerely but inaccurately).

When a person says “that effect is incurable,” they may mean that they are ignorant of how to stop producing that effect. However, most MDs do not even relate to diagnostic labels as effects. They may presumptively relate to certain diagnostic labels as causes. That simple error can lead to a lot of confusion, a lot of embarrassment, and, eventually, a lot of learning.

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.

“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?

On the hysteria of “what’s wrong with humans these days!?!?!”

June 10, 2014

Natasha Ilieva and 10 others like this.

Natasha Ilieva:

is all over the world …what’s wrong with humans
June 6 at 7:26pm · Like · 3


J R Fibonacci Hunn:

Apparently Elizabeth is ignorant of the history of governments and their fundamental nature. That would be very frustrating for her! (She might even be saying frustrated things like “what’s wrong with humans!?!?!”)
June 7 at 2:05pm · Edited · Like · 1


Natasha Ilieva:

fundamental nature of governments is mirror of human’s awareness dear J R Fibonacci Hunn lol…so “whats wrong with humans” is right question hehehhe
June 8 at 12:22am · Like


J R Fibonacci Hunn:

Governments regulate human interactions. That comes in many forms- including organized coercion. Technology changes methods.

The awareness of the human witness does not alter what an instance of capital punishment is. It is still cold-blooded ritual human sacrifice. However, most “liberals” will say “that is horrifying!”

Maybe it is. That may even be the point: to terrify others. I am simply saying that government rituals of public execution are for the purpose of influencing the behavior of groups of humans.
June 8 at 1:14am · Edited · Like · 1


Natasha Ilieva:

no dear u will be surprised to know that governments are society mirror …reflection of our interests state of mind and awareness…if not revolution will be only possible way of living …there are powers which work in collective consciousness…if we don’t agree brainwashed by leaders we will not accept their decisions and silly laws …is right first time for everything to happen …for Hitler Stalin Bush and everybody to come and rule…sheep’s accept… they need this lesson and teacher is ready hehehe
June 8 at 1:47am · Edited · Like · 1


J R Fibonacci Hunn:

Silly laws huh? I should post my recent article on a new perspective that I got on forgiveness from a Tibetan monk who was tortured by the Chinese government. When you or your family member is jailed or tortured or bombed, I wonder if you would still be so dismissive of government violence….

I consider your perspective idealistic and guilt-centered. If Alaska’s government budget benefits from huge revenues from the oil industry while other US states approach bankruptcy, are the geological facts “just reflections of the people’s state?”

I understand that you may be terrified and cling to your ideology. Great. That is what ideological delusions are for- to pacify the sheep.

How about the province of Alberta- way more oil than any other province in Canada! Way more wealthy, more stable government, etc….That’s just the superior consciousness of the people there, right?
June 8 at 2:06am · Edited · Like · 1


Natasha Ilieva:

yes government reflect collective consciousnesses of people…Canada has nothing to do with some other country or race..evolution is going on personal level race nation country and world…government violence is lesson not punishment ..we both with u h…See More
June 8 at 3:39am · Edited · Like


J R Fibonacci Hunn:

To me, your presentation is without peace. It is violent in a way subtle way- with passive aggression.

A hurricane violently rips apart the garden you planted, when you violently dragged a rake across the soil and violently ripped weeds out and violently made holes in the mud. The whole orientation of “it is this but not that” is “violent” and argumentative.

What if violence can be a lesson and a punishment? I even said that a well-publicized capital punishment is publicized so as to be a lesson, right?

“My goal is to get free of mind.” Then you claim that are not free of it. Who are you that has been making such presumptions?
June 8 at 3:20pm · Edited · Like


J R Fibonacci Hunn:

Here is my latest audio in which I clarify the confusions that people encounter in regard to “getting free of the mind”:

a new perspective

June 8 at 3:19pm · Like · 1 · Remove Preview


J R Fibonacci Hunn:

Here is a much shorter piece focusing on the mind’s tendency to condemn and the withdrawing of such hysterical panics of condemnation:

Is forgiveness about what someone else did or about self-respect?
June 8 at 3:23pm · Like · 1 · Remove Preview


Natasha Ilieva:

yes forgiveness serves ur soul not others…is important to delete records of ur mind do not suffer …if God let children to be abused and killed being innocent will u change ur perspective on humans acts..we are souls in body and mind …all what happens is important for the soul not body and mind …they make only to look real but is not …pain is still our teacher …making soul wake up…change the perspective dear go above all mess we do on earth and see the whole plan of creation heheh
Yesterday at 12:07am · Edited · Like


J R Fibonacci Hunn:

Your comment, Natasha, looks incomplete. (ok, I see you finished it now.)
Yesterday at 12:14am · Edited · Like · 1


Natasha Ilieva:

i love ur restless soul ehhehe
Yesterday at 12:12am · Edited · Unlike · 1


J R Fibonacci Hunn: In the “new perspective” audio (and article), I present an unusual relationship between body, soul, and mind. It is not mysterious or conflicted. However, it does not fit with the common idealisms of “the evolution of the soul.” The soul is a “higher self” that does not have fantasies of “personal evolution” and is indeed already operating in the mode that many minds worship as “the ultimate goal.”
Yesterday at 12:14am · Edited · Like · 1

J R Fibonacci Hunn:

“The plan of creation” is already here, right? When the soul witnesses the mind and the personas of the mind, there can be an identifying with some persona as if the persona is the fundamental reality rather than just the temporary branch of an eternal tree.
Yesterday at 12:16am · Like · 1


Natasha Ilieva:

no dear u are wrong …see children how different they are since coming in body…souls have their evolution like planets of our solar system…tehre are 7 cycles of transformation we all get trough…
Yesterday at 12:16am · Like


J R Fibonacci Hunn:

If you are not open to alternative ideas or understandings, that is okay. You can keep an antagonistic “I’m right and you’re wrong” identity in the mind. That stage of experience is also important, so that you can repel alternatives and explore undistracted one particular ideology or idealism and learn all that it has to offer.
Yesterday at 12:18am · Edited · Like · 1


Natasha Ilieva:

i respect all ur ideas they are cosmic mind also but i am interested in pure consciousnesses do u feel the difference lol…not interpretations of truth but truth itself …creation happens every minute …billion realities all are GOD
Yesterday at 12:21am · Edited · Like


J R Fibonacci Hunn:

Ah, well thank you for loving my “restless” soul.
Yesterday at 12:21am · Like · 1


Natasha Ilieva:

soul is just an atom of light and consciousness…is a bridge between mind and higher self God in us …is limited and slowly transforming in pure light disappears and u are God itself hehehe
Yesterday at 12:22am · Edited · Like


J R Fibonacci Hunn:

“Soul” is to me a word that can mean “pure consciousness.” Within the field or theatre of consciousness, mind can set up plays and dramas and then personas can take the stage and argue and agree and so on.
Yesterday at 12:23am · Like · 1


Natasha Ilieva:

no soul is teh micro chip of ur computer called JR hehehe
Yesterday at 12:24am · Like


J R Fibonacci Hunn:

Mind can ask “silly” questions like “how can I re-unite my soul with pure consciousness?” That could a hysterical (hilarious, delusional) question.

Those kinds of jokes are important in comedies. A good joke can show us the silliness and foolishness of common patterns of thinking and experience.
Yesterday at 12:25am · Like · 1


Natasha Ilieva:

ok dear ur soul is the cloves God puts coming in astral levels…ur body is teh machine and mind is the motor is it clear now…when u speak about God divine Universal consciousness see only light like 1000 suns
Yesterday at 12:28am · Like


J R Fibonacci Hunn:

I am clear. There is a congruence and consistency apparent within my articles and audios if you care to explore.

However, I do not recognize clarity in your comments about “cloves.” Maybe “auto-correct” jarbled your typing. I am okay with other people using words in other ways than I use them. That is simply an inevitability.
Yesterday at 12:33am · Like


J R Fibonacci Hunn:

Maybe you meant “soul is the clothes….”
Yesterday at 12:40am · Like · 1


J R Fibonacci Hunn: Personas (personalities, identities) are like characters in a play that one actor can “adopt” briefly. They are like costumes or clothes. That is how I use the term “persona.”
Yesterday at 12:42am · Like


J R Fibonacci Hunn:

Per-sona actually comes from a Greek word for the mask worn by an actor in a theatrical performance. The wooden masks had different “sound-holes” built in to the masks, so the voice of the actor would be different as they put on the different masks or “per-sonas.”
Yesterday at 12:43am · Like


J R Fibonacci Hunn:

The saint, the villain, the hero, the victim, etc….
Yesterday at 12:44am · Like


Natasha Ilieva:

u can call them anyway…u are better in words i in love…so u will explain i will love…we both go in parallel hope to cross in one moment hehehe
Yesterday at 12:44am · Like


J R Fibonacci Hunn:

The soul can only love. What the personas do may be of no great importance to the soul.
Yesterday at 12:45am · Edited · Like · 1


Natasha Ilieva:

it is important if u kill in this life u will be killed in next …for the spirit is not important pure consciousnesses is there
Yesterday at 12:47am · Like


J R Fibonacci Hunn:

Bodies may be mortal. What if the soul is immortal?

If one identifies with the body, so be it. What if the body is simply respected as a useful branch of a sacred tree?
Yesterday at 12:49am · Like · 1


J R Fibonacci Hunn:

The one who fears hell may be only a persona. The persona may suffer from guilt and shame and so on. That may be an important learning process.
Yesterday at 12:51am · Like · 1


Natasha Ilieva:

The Rosicrucian Cosmo-Conception, by Max Heindel
God-sent are all religions blest; And Christ, the Way, the Truth, the Life, To give the heavy laden rest And peace from sorrow, sin, and strife.
Yesterday at 12:55am · Like


Natasha Ilieva:

read that they are close to truth…
Yesterday at 12:55am · Like


J R Fibonacci Hunn:

I am clear. I do not seek clarification on these subjects through reading. Thank you for the sentiment.

I shared the article and audio for you to enjoy. The audio contains many silly amusements as well as precise clarity in regard to several issues mentioned in this thread that often people may find confusing.
Yesterday at 1:20am · Like · 1


Natasha Ilieva:

go on if this is ur mission do it …everybody seeds on his field don’t judge others job…let them work …God is the judge we are the servants…never forget all roads lead to same not better road is just TAO…THE PATH
Yesterday at 1:36am · Like


J R Fibonacci Hunn:

Some believe that is some distance between them and the destination. Could that be an optional presumption?

“My judgement is that you should not judge me.” Ah, yes, more jokes. I get it!
Yesterday at 1:49am · Like · 1


Natasha Ilieva:

see the difference between judge and response …i can be not agree with u coz my level of awareness is different we project our mind on others so many people and opinions…i accept ur opinion don’t judge it just say let it be …in position of “all is God” judgement is useless…all ur videos are good for mind people …so i say seed ur field but don’t judge my seeding hehehe
Yesterday at 2:04am · Edited · Like


J R Fibonacci Hunn:

You seem arrogant to me, rather than curious. You present things like “other people are just projecting opinions, but not me.” HA!
19 hours ago · Edited · Like · 1


Natasha Ilieva:

ok i give up…let it be ur will not mine…u are right i am wrong hehehhe
14 hours ago · Like


J R Fibonacci Hunn:

Your comments can be valid and mine can be different but still valid. Also, I did not mean to imply that you “should” be curious about anything or that you should not be what I call arrogant. I’m just offering you some alternative to the idea that “there must be SOMETHING that is fundamentally wrong!!!” (referencing Elizabeth Warren’s quotation)

Really? What if everything was fundamentally just exactly what it is?
11 hrs · Edited · Like · 1


Natasha Ilieva:

all what is wrong is in mind dear not in consciousness…wake up people make them curious to know truth but don’t fall in the trap of interpretations…mind can bring u to nowhere is very limited and works with known information…my goal is unknown …love u
11 hrs · Like


J R Fibonacci Hunn:

Yes, when the mind is programmed to make certain unexamined presumptions (like those of Senator Warren) that leads to a hysteria of heroic perfectionism, and then the natural result of the inevitable encounter with reality is self-righteous frustration.

Then she says ignorant things like “the only people who go to jail TODAY are….” What is revealed? Her idealism that in prior times or other places, court systems were much different.

The nature of court systems is organized coercion. That is another word for extortion. Or we can call it taxation. The label “that the mind uses” does not alter the pattern of behavior any more than labeling it in another language like German or Japanese or Arabic.
29 mins · Edited · Like · 1


J R Fibonacci Hunn:

Why does she deperately say that they should be different? Her pretense is crumbling. Her denial is crumbling.

When there are illusions or delusions, then there is the potential for disillusionment or waking up. That can be disorienting.
27 mins · Edited · Like


Natasha Ilieva:

good ring the bell just don’t become dog barking only…hope all what u discus will have response in ursociety…they need clearance about many points in “american dream” lol
24 mins · Like


J R Fibonacci Hunn:

So, we can recognize that there is a pattern of “suffering mind” (or we could even say “border-line” mental illness) that we may perceive with that Senator. Further, there is something we can call mindfulness or enlightenment. That does not cancel the mind or prevent the use of language. That just implies an orderly mind.
22 mins · Edited · Like


J R Fibonacci Hunn:

I am not interested in “them” (or in Senator Warren). I am just offering you an example of mindfulness or an awakened mind. You can resist it or argue with it. That is up to you.
23 mins · Like · 1


Natasha Ilieva:

babe i just shared others post “what is wrong in American society and see how many words u wrote on my wall hehehehe
22 mins · Like


J R Fibonacci Hunn:

Yes, I see how many words we wrote. You can continue to relate to “American society” as a target of condemnation for what is wrong with it (like Senator Warren has done). I am just presenting you the option of respecting it as it is without showing your disdain for it to attract interaction from others (approval or discussion).

Senator Warren is actually a very clever person. I like her research very much in regard to economic analysis and forecasting. I also understand her panicked retreat in to idealism. When I first began publishing commentaries on the future of US and global economics in 2003, it was quite a challenging emotional transition for me as well.
16 mins · Edited · Like


J R Fibonacci Hunn:

From the beginning, government has been a system of inequity. When in the 1980s high-ranking US leaders like Caspar Weinberger or Oliver North were involved in smuggling weapons illegally, trafficking cocaine illegally, and money-laundering of their drug proifts, the extremely unusual thing about that is that the public became aware of it. Next, the “justice system” started it’s process and convicted North, but then people like Bush and his drug-smuggling partner Clinton “pardoned” the “criminals.”

What is new about presidential pardons and all the rest? Nothing. This is business as usual. From the 19th century opium trafficking of the British Empire to the CIA’s cocaine operations, governments make certain actions illegal for the public. That helps to reduce competition and raise profit-margins.

The US (with grandpa Prescott Bush) was a source of major support for both Nazi Germany as well as the communist revolution leading to the formation of the USSR. The media and schools may say “those are our enemies,” but what the word “enemy” really means is that the masses are prohibited from being involved in the extremely profitable operations of the Free Masons and Jesuits and so on.

What “those are our enemies” really means is “those are *your* enemies.” The method of “divide & conquer” is not new.

Senator Warren is allowed to speak to a big audience because she is what is called a “useful idiot.” She helps to distract people like you from the simple realities. With the modern internet, hiding history is a new challenge for the elite, so lots of high-intensity political “controversy” is essential.
2 mins · Edited · Like


J R Fibonacci Hunn:

Natasha Ilieva wrote: “is all over the world …what’s wrong with humans”

Yes, down with those shameful creatures! Send them to an eternity in hell for their sins.

Clarity in the midst of contradictions and confusion

April 21, 2013

Clarity in the midst of a hysterical panic about confusing contradictions

Entering from California

Entering from California (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Maybe you know that there is a border between the US states of Arizona and California. Imagine two people standing a few feet apart on either side of the border boundary (a signpost or fence or whatever). The one in California points east to Arizona and says “the border is to the east.” The one in Arizona points west to California and says “no, the border is to the west.”

Can you get the silliness of that? Then they are startled and confused and frustrated that someone disagrees with them so they panic and yell (as if that will help their frustration) and soon they get in to a fist fight and eventually die of their wounds.

Now, I have just described to you how most people relate to… almost everything, certainly a lot of political “debate.” There is no “injustice” and no “east” and no “fundamental rights” outside of you. There are developments that you can observe and sense and then interpret and label.

In my example above, I could have used “right and left” instead of “east and west” or I could have used “right and wrong.” I picked a ridiculous example so that you would not have a hysterical outburst of panic and rage about my example, so your understanding would not be clouded by inaccurate presumptions and confusion and hysteria and rage and shame and hostility, as in terrified panicking.

Figure 2: Simple-minded frame-of-reference example

Figure 2: Simple-minded frame-of-reference example (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

JJ replied: 

so you are making some reference as to the perspective of two people or two groups ….. please make this same example work using up and down…. this changes the frame of reference so it is the same for each of the protagonist. and please leave your rage shame and hostility wherever you keep it when not in use.

JR replies:

The issue is not when there are two people who use language consistently. The issue is when there is a contradiction.

Contradiction only exists in language. There are no contradictions external to you. There are only linguistic contradictions. Contradiction could involve two contrasting “dictions” (sayings). If there is a ironic conflict between a linguistic statement and some external reality, we might also call that a “contradiction.”

Regarding your request about “up and down,” it is like when there are two people at the top and bottom of a stairway and a fire in the middle between them. One of them wants to argue about whether the fire is below or above (up or down). That one may be hysterical. That one may scream at the other person to agree with them. That is focusing on the language and not on the fire.

English: United States Supreme Court building ...

English: United States Supreme Court building in Washington D.C., USA. Front facade. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

For another instance, as the US government begins to implement the same policies that it has been implementing worldwide for decades here at home in the US (like in Boston recently), some people will argue hysterically “but that is unconstitutional!” Unconstitutional is a category in language. When the ruling priesthood of the US (the supreme judges of the court of the rulers’ rules) DICTATES that something is unconstitutional, that may be more important than what you or I say. When the Congress passes a new amendment revoking some other amendment, that is a constitutional reform. What is LEGALLY unconstitutional or constitutional can change in two ways: the Supreme Court issues a new ruling or the constitution is changed (or a treaty supersedes it and so forth, like when the ruling powers of Europe took over the US government without firing a shot by placing the Federal Reserve System OVER the existing national government of the US).

Description: Newspaper clipping USA, Woodrow W...

Description: Newspaper clipping USA, Woodrow Wilson signs creation of the Federal Reserve. Source: Date: 24 December 1913 (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

The idea that there is a POWERFUL constitution made of paper with powerful shapes of magic ink on the powerful paper is government propaganda. Bullets and bombs have always been the only authority behind that ink on that paper, as well as the only authority behind any court-dictated currency, etc etc etc….

Federal reserve police car, St. Louis, MO

Federal reserve police car, St. Louis, MO (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

A sunset in the Arizona desert near Scottsdale...

A sunset in the Arizona desert near Scottsdale. The climate and imagery are two factors behind Arizona’s tourism industry. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

So, in conclusion, confusion is a sign of inaccurate presumptions. The mature respond to this by correcting their presumptions or at least slowing down with a humble curiosity. The terrified will blame some external trigger for their internal experience of confusion, leading to resentment, hostility, rage, and so on.

That is the basic teaching of the Buddha (the 3rd noble truth, which the prior 2 simply lead up to). However, the vast majority of people who have been exposed to that teaching may have very little actual comprehension of it.

They still think of suffering as something that happens to them. Suffering is something that humans do. It is an activity, a habit, a behavior.

Mostly, suffering is a way to relate to life or label life or interpret life- using language. Suffering is to attribute the cause of confusion to external developments as “what should not be” and then attempt to reform external reality and prevent it from being “what it should not be.” That is the nature of what ancient Hebrew scholars called “hell.”


Only the humble enter heaven and experience the peace of heaven because only the humble are willing to consider that their linguistic practices may be factors in their experience of confusion. This is not a moral superiority. Any who could get in to heaven would. This is an issue of  spiritual development, only accessible by grace.

Anti-fat hysteria and the silly question of whether immune system activity is good or bad

February 17, 2013
English: Source: FDA-OCI

English: Source: FDA-OCI (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Hello, and thank you for visiting my blog. I am writing this as a response to the blogger who re-blogged a recent post of mine here: Here is an excerpt of that author’s comment (published on their own blog) about my recent post titled “How severe obesity is a sign of starvation (malnutrition),” which was about how hunger is a sign of unmet nutritional demand (which makes sense, right), especially unmet demand for the highest-quality fuel which a human can consume: raw fat.

I found this post fascinating…I often write about my “indigent experience.” One thing I have not explored, in writing, is why so many indigent people are so overweight. I, myself, am often quite hungry in my daily struggle for food, but I make a concerted effort to consume vegetables, nuts, grains, fruits, etc. Additionally, though I prefer a vegan diet, or at least, a vegetarian one, because “beggars cannot be choosers,” I will eat “flesh” when my only other option is not to eat, at all…. 

Thank you for sharing my blog. For reference, I am a former vegetarian and even a former vegan, all of which preceded my loss of the ability to walk due to malnutrition (in the particular form known as Multiple Sclerosis- from which I have fully recovered due to conforming my diet with the natural design of the human digestive system). In general, I invite you to read some of the other recent posts on my blog in which I address diet and health more broadly. For now, I will give a summary comment which stretches across the topics of a number of my blogs.

Note first that I promote a diet abundant in raw fats, such as avocado, coconut, olive, flax, hemp, and ESPECIALLY all forms of high-quality animal fats, such as in eggs, seafood, as well as wild and grass-fed flesh and organs. In other words, I favor the diet that that has been the core dietary practice of humans for all of pre-history.

A raw, paleolithic-style dish: A sashimi (raw ...

A raw, paleolithic-style dish: A sashimi (raw fish) dinner set (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Also, as a point of lesser emphasis, I note that in the last 40,000 years or so, many cultures have thrived with the use of fresh (unpasteurized) dairy products from healthy mammals kept in herds, including fermented dairy such as yogurt and cottage cheese. While many “radical traditionalists” in the nutrition field regard dairy (besides a mother’s breastmilk for her infant) with about the same repulsion as the average vegan, I am very grateful for my OVERNIGHT recovery of the ability to walk after consuming a single pint of raw cream (from a healthy, grass-fed cow), which cost me only $4.50 plus shipping. Given the immense struggle and pain of my experience with Multiple Sclerosis (during which my typical WEEKLY total sleep would be under 3 hours), a meager $4.50 was a price that I was “more than happy” to pay….

So, the advances in human evolution over other species could be said to be “topped” by the advanced neurological formations of humans. Largely, all researchers that I am aware of agree that these advances were due to a much higher availability of omega-3 fatty acids in the diets of ancient humans (compared to other primates). Simply put, humans were better at hunting animals. That is how we got the brains (and the DNA) that we have. Humans who do not consume an abundance of omega-3 fatty acids will have less intellectual capacity (while eating more omega-3s,  especially the DHA and EPA found in animal sources,  will increase intelligence, concentration, coordination, athletic performance, etc.) Again, this is a simple matter of clear scientific research and also a rather simple thing for someone to test on their own.

English: Fish oil plant. Operated by Equateq, ...

English: Fish oil plant. Operated by Equateq, this plant opened in 2005 to process fish into omega-3 oils and fatty acids for the pharmaceutical sector. A big investment in an otherwise non-industrialised part of the Outer Hebrides. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)


Fda (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Naturally, however, in any culture in which a primary value is the brainwashing and dependency of the “human resources,” it is predictable that propaganda that directs the masses AWAY from any nutritional practices that promote intelligence would be a priority for the ruling system of governing, regulating behavior, mind control, etc. So, the anti-fat propaganda launched by the FDA around 1984 (and in other countries as well) was a crowning achievement in the anti-health educational indoctrination managed by the FDA through public schools. Obesity rates have multiplied several times over as a result of the anti-fat campaigns. Not only is pharmaceutical drug dependency at all-time highs (which is very favorable for terrifying the addicts with threats of reducing free health care socialism and so on), but the overall health of the masses is historically low, as well as critical-thinking skills. (Note for instance the deteriorating respectfulness of the public in their political debates of passionate arguing and partisan animosity.)

The primary nutrient (though second to water) for humans is fat. Without a bit of credible scientific evidence, fat has been demonized in a massive religious indoctrination campaign by the FDA priests of the leading religion of the modern world, the United States of America (a very imperialist denomination within the Vatican’s UN network). Devout followers of that religion have avoided fat (as directed), resulting in malnutrition, obesity, and, ironically, cholesterol irregularities. (That is ironic because avoiding fat was presented to the domesticated herds as a solution to the cholesterol “panic,” when in fact avoiding fat LEADS to cholesterol issues and cardiovascular dysfunction.)

However, the herds have largely accepted blindly both the belief systems and ritual practices promoted by the priesthood of the FDA. Now that the public is catching on, if only rather slowly, the health of the masses has already been greatly reduced from prior standards. How things will proceed from here has been speculated about for a long time by many leaders of the global “domestication” programs. Some find the subject terrifying and riveting, while others find it to be simply a practical issue as to how personally to refine one’s own presumptions and any rituals that one may still be blindly repeating. The more omega-3 fatty acids that someone is eating, the more important it may be to them to continue that dietary “ritual,” above other lesser priorities like those suggested by the commercial advertisements and public indoctrination programs of the culture of imperialist consumerism.

Jan. 6, 2009; Atlanta, GA – Looking for possib...

Jan. 6, 2009; Atlanta, GA – Looking for possible bacterial contamination in food, an FDA microbiologist prepares DNA samples for analysis. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Note that one of the most precious superstitions of the FDA’s religion is hysteria about any activity of the immune system, such as sneezing or vomiting or even profuse sweating (especially when the sweat smells like the toxins being released). Because the eating of foods rich in bacteria can lead, for those with an abundance of toxins, to a sudden release of toxins through dramatic (and truly inconvenient!) mechanisms such as vomiting and diarrhea, followers of the FDA’s religion may think of bacteria as merely the CAUSE of health-diminishing illness rather than as the CATALYST for healing detoxification. Realistically, for those without a basic level of economic stability, all illness impairs their capacity to be a good, reliable union employee/human resource.

Related to the anti-bacterial hysteria (and the pro-sterility hysteria in general) is the anti-meat hysteria and, in particular, the anti-raw hysteria (especially in regard to the consumption of raw animal products, including, quite famously in recent legal cases, raw dairy products). I address the anti-dairy hysteria in posts like these:


128% of Scientists are easily misled by cancerous headlines

July 18, 2012

128% of Scientists are easily misled by cancerous headlines

English: Elvis Presley meeting Richard Nixon. ...

English: Elvis Presley meeting Richard Nixon. On December 21, 1970, at his own request, Presley met then-President Richard Nixon in the Oval Office of The White House. Elvis is on the right. Waggishly, this picture is said to be ‘of the two greatest recording artists of the 20th century’. The Nixon Library & Birthplace sells a number of souvenir items with this photo and the caption, “The President & the King.” (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Last week, a group of senior citizens initiated a new campaign to promote a more mature political process in the United Kingdom by raising the voting age to 65. “This will also save money on elections by dramatically reducing the number of voters,” said AARP President Richard Nixon.

Justin Beiber responded by agreeing that a reduction in the cost of holding elections is the primary financial priority of the United Parcel Service, and that is why he also supports a slight revision of the voting age regulations. His proposal reverses the current system of unfair inequality for a more progressive arrangement: only people under 18 will be eligible to vote. Economists suggest that Beiber’s proposal, while immensely popular among teenage girls aged 12-15, would burden the economy by redistributing wealth toward a 700% increase in the purchase of wall posters.

“It’s one thing for people to have a picture of Richard Nixon or Elvis or the American Flag or Jesus on your wall, but having a picture of Justin Beiber shows a lack of respect for the historical importance of the political influence of the Secret Societies of the Holy Roman Catholic Empire,” said Jesus Christ, founder of the Jesuit Order of Free Masonic Popes and Pharaohs, adding that “economic interests should not ever influence behavior. That is strictly forbidden. That is selfish and will get slaves like you sent straight to an eternity of tortures in hell, which is what we call the secret room under the pyramids where we conduct ritual inquisitions of suspected candidates for human sacrifice. Therefore, there has never been any evidence of a connection between economic interests and actual behavior. That is just a conspiracy theory put forward by people who are jealous of the success of our systems of involuntary wealth transfer through organized intimidation networks of tax extortion.”

Several spokesgirls for the Beiber campaign promptly indicated their clear comprehension of the issues by twirling their hair, rolling their eyes and saying “nuh uh.” This reflex was followed by yet another outburst of giggling.


Hysteria (Photo credit: D. Stenvers)

In other news, the Federal Association for the Promotion of Hysteria through Propaganda said that a terror alert has been announced for you personally. It will last for exactly 14 seconds and will begin in only 9 seconds, so it is best to prepare right away.

Now, everyone knows that baldness is a leading cause of hair loss. So, in order to combat rising fuel prices, the Beiber campaign has announced a new constitutional amendment to triple the amount of crude oil in Alaska, which will save the economy of Alaska, which has already been leading economic growth among US states for 27 of the last 19 years.

In particular, an accumulation of dishes in the kitchen sink is growing at a rate of 21% per day, reports Richard Nixon, AARP President. “This malignant growth of dishes is caused by cancer. Cancer is caused by hysteria. Hysteria is caused by a misunderstanding about labels.”

Jesus Christ taught us that “Labels do not cause hair loss or an accumulation of something. Labels only label something. Cancer is the label for when there is an accumulation of certain kinds of waste. When a body is not eliminating waste well and is accumulating it in various places, that is not the malignant spread of a cancerous label. That is just the accumulation of waste in various places.”

Brunch aftermath

Brunch aftermath (Photo credit: nicholasjon)

Justin Beiber instructed us to “notice that the accumulation of dishes in the kitchen sink is often accompanied by dirty clothes overflowing from one laundry basket, and then another laundry basket, and then a pile of clothes spread throughout the floor of the rooms of certain teenagers, especially those without any of my posters on the wall. So, did the cancerous growth of unwashed dishes spread to a cancerous growth of dirty clothes? Isn’t an extreme treatment such as radiation the only obvious remedy (which is a bit like burning down the house so as to remove the dirty laundry, right)? If the construction industry promotes burning down houses in order to remove dirty laundry, is that the same as the radiation and chemotherapy industry promoting their favored treatment methods?”

When a body is not eliminating waste (or dead cells) as fast as the process of accumulation, that can be labeled “having incurable cancer.” In that case, do snakes who are shedding their skin have cancer until they shed their skin?
In other shocking news designed to combat reserve psychology, several spokesgirls from the Beiber campaign finished each others sentences today, saying that “the reason that we have not washed the dishes yet is like because the kitchen sink has, uh, cancer or something, okay? So, anyway, we really would wash the dishes, but then like more dishes would just get dirty again, so what’s the point? Seriously, if you don’t like the growing stack of dirty dishes in the kitchen sink, Mr. Nixon, then maybe you need to like fund more research for finding a cure for using the label cancer for what is actually just an accumulation of waste!”

Mr. Nixon only responded by hysterically chanting repeatedly that the Surgeon General says that hair loss is the leading cause of baldness. However, his response is extremely impressive, considering that he has been dead for 47 centuries.

Corcovado jesus

Corcovado jesus (Photo credit: @Doug88888)

In more of the same news that you have already been pumped with for decades, Jesus Christ was denied three times today, rejecting the premise that intelligence is a leading cause of turning off the TV, of questioning the propaganda of public schools and of researching the claims of mainstream churches. Studying the specific methods of propaganda, of the influencing of perception, and of commercial mind control may or may not be a leading cause of a cancerous growth of clarity and sanity.

In contrast, eating a diet that corresponds to the design of the human digestive system is a leading cause of having fully developed organs, which is a leading cause of having fully nourished organs, which is a leading cause of having fully functioning organs, which is a leading cause of having the capacity to eliminate waste faster than it is produced, which is also related to consuming little or no “crap” that has only been consumed by consumers for several decades. “By the way,” said Justin Beiber, “I was born with a severe case of baldness caused by a pre-natal cancerous growth of benign malignancies.”

#Justin Beiber - To buy, or not to buy?:)

“Note that the name of His Holiness is spelled right on the package above.” #Justin Beiber – To buy, or not to buy?:) (Photo credit: joykennelly)

Jesus denied having any knowledge of how to miraculously cure labels, saying that “In my personal experience, I have found that a lot of people have a tendency to mildly over-react to hysteria. Also, malignant hypochondria is actually not malignant or hypochondria, but it is entirely incurable. Finally, confusion is the leading cause of labeling one thing as something else and then focusing on the label itself rather than what is actually happening that has been labeled with whatever label. Do not label something as confusing when in fact it is just you using a label for something that does not actually fit with the thing itself, you silly little worshipers of Justin Beiber.”

Selena and Justin Out on a Date in LA

Selena and Justin Out on a Date in LA (Photo credit: Kolya Korobochkin)

Dissolving the fear of logic and of clarity

July 1, 2012

Dissolving the fear of logic and clarity

Français : Logo de la société LOGIC

Français : Logo de la société LOGIC (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Yesterday someone mentioned to me the idea of “being logical” as being one of many “functional qualities.” I consider it not just one quality among many but the essential foundation of functionality. Let me give you a short but striking example that can demonstrate what I mean by the importance of logic.

“The sunlight is never the sunlight including when she subtracted seven from a button of slowly hudteshged.”

The above sequence of letters and words is not logically consistent. It is not coherent. Without logic, there is little other functionality possible.
Even to just walk, the brain and muscles perform a specific “logical” (neurological) sequence of actions. Toddlers are training their nerves and muscles to perform the useful sequence of muscular actions to be able to walk instead of crawl. They use conscious attention to “logically” determine (through trial and error) how to balance as they move, exactly which muscles to exert when, and also how to stop their momentum and come to a motionless standing position.

Let’s not confuse “logical” with “requiring conscious attention.” I can walk without conscious attention on exactly how I walk, as I instead focus on where I am going, but that does not mean that the neurological activity of walking is “illogical.” Unconscious logic is still logic. Everything that is neurological is logical. Even the way that proteins are manufactured has a certain “logic” (pattern of functionality) to it.

Logic is the begining of "creative" ...

Logic is the begining of “creative” – poster (Photo credit: RabiD Son)

This reminds me of the root of the word logic as having the same root as the word “Logos.” Logic could just mean a particular pattern of functionality, a certain way of doing something, of producing a particular result. Logic ultimately means a certain way of doing something, like the logical process of an engineer will be distinct from the logical process of a chemist, though all patterns of logic are logical.

Even the “logic” of a “religious fanatic” or “political fanatic” will be predictable as in consistent internally. All anti-abortion protestors will focus on that issue even if it means ignoring anti-war protesting. All anti-war protestors will fixate or pre-occupy themselves on their favorite issue even if it means ignoring anti-abortion protesting.

Hysterical protestors of all kinds may all be hysterical, but even the hysteria is logical. Even someone who goes in to a panic whenever they ride an elevator does so though a very specific sequence. If, for some reason, someone who is hysterically terrified of elevators does not know that they are riding an elevator, they will not panic. Logic is absolutely required to produce hysteria. It is not the riding of the elevator, but a reactive belief about riding an elevator, that produces hysteria. If someone is tricked in to believing that they are riding an elevator when they are not, the perception or belief is enough to trigger the hysteria. (Note: perception = belief.)

Hysteria is not total the absence of logic. Hysteria is evidence of a particular logical presumption. Any presumption may be false. Any instance of logic may be faulty. Some interpretation may be a misinterpretation. However, can there be an absence of logic?

English: A logical fallacy. Statement 1: Most ...

English: A logical fallacy. Statement 1: Most of the green is touching the red. Statement 2: Most of the red is touching the blue. Logical fallacy: Since most of the green is touching red, and most of the red is touching blue, most of the green must be touching blue. This, however, is a false statement. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

In fact, can there be an absence of presumption? Presumptions do not replace logic. Logic requires presumptions.

Presumptions are are created through logic. Induction is the name for the logical process of creating premises or presumptions based on a series of observations and the construction of conceptual patterns (called presumptions or premises).

Deductive logic is the use of the induced premises in order to formulate predictions. Whenever a particular logical deduction does not predict an actual observed result, scientific logic involves a rejecting of the premise or presumption or hypothesis, which has been established as false by the observed results.
Hysteria or mental illness may correspond to people maintaining their disproved premise (their sacred ideology or idolatry) while rejecting their experience or trying to fix their experience to fit their premise (“how it should be”). Why would someone reject their experience in favor of maintaining a particular false premise? In some cases, that is actually the “only logical” alternative that they perceive. The limited perception (or even delusion) has to do with blind faith (blindspots), which is actually just mere belief, not faith at all.

Beliefs may lead us to “mislabel” things- to confuse one thing for something else. Such “misinterpretation” is still interpretative, logical, and presumptive. All interpretation is presumptive. All logic is interpretive. The distress of the hysteria or mental illness (anxiety, paranoia, panic, rage, etc) has a very rigid logic (often accompanied by neuro-muscular rigidity or tension)- not the complete absence of logic, but a certain particular level of logical development (or intellectual development AKA intelligence).

English: binary logical operations

English: binary logical operations (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Logic is essential (foundational). Clarity and precision and rigor and reliability are qualities that are possible through logic. They are refinements of logic. Everyone has logic, allowing for various degrees of development of any particular perceptiveness or sensitivity or clarity.

Logic is like visual focus in that logic allows us to focus on a particular issue. How quickly can logic identify the factors relevant to a particular possibility, priority, or circumstance? That is the issue of varying degrees of functionality. How quickly can someone identify the relevant conceptual presumptions or logical premises? In dealing with hysteria, how quickly can someone recognize the logic of the hysteria and interrupt or deconstruct it?

So, how important is logic? In exploring this issue, I cannot emphasize enough that “the sunlight is never the sunlight including when she subtracted seven from a button of slowly hudteshged.”

Even if the above sequence of words conformed to the standard rules of syntax, there is still the issue of the conceptual functionality of “subtracting seven from a button.” We could call that “nonsense.”

Further, the last “word” (hudteshged) was not an actual word. I could have simply finished the sentence with an obscure foreign word or some foreign lettering, or even some shapes that kind of look like letters, but are not, such as an astrological symbol that was later borrowed by herbalists and pharmacists and other “witch doctors”:

Could the above sequence of words be useful? Yes, of course, nonsense phrases can be useful for confusing people or distracting them. It is also valuable to recognize that language has only one logical function: to influence. Producing confusion can be a very effective method for arousing in people a mild state of anxiety or panic, allowing for them to be directed to “solutions” that they might otherwise avoid or resist if they were relying on their own direct experience and logical evaluation.

Further, inserting unfamiliar information might also be “distracting,” such as my reference to the Rx symbol. It happens to be an accurate reference, but accuracy is not required for a distraction to be effective. In fact, statements of obviously questionable accuracy or logic can be some of the most effective at distracting people. Note that right before the series of visual symbols, I presented a sequence of verbal categorizing that implied that “witch doctors” is a broader verbal category than “herbalists” and “pharmacists” which includes those two groups as subcategories. Typically, some people might question how appropriate it is to present pharmacists as a type of witch doctor, but by changing from words to unfamiliar visual symbols that present obscure information, one could call it a technique of distracting someone from the actual logic of the “witch doctor” categorization.

Why? Because people tend to use the term witch doctor to refer to “methods that do not work reliably” such as placebos. In the case of pharmaceutical drugs, they might “work” 80% of the time or even only 40% and yet still be considered quite valuable. We are indoctrinated to use the term “witch doctor” to refer to practices that are ridiculed by the “opinion leaders” of a particular culture.

When European physicians insisted that there was such a thing as scurvy and it was incurable, “witch doctors” offered foods that relieve the symptoms of a deficiency in Vitamin C. Because the information came from “witch doctors” (or because it was received by arrogantly ignorant “civilized physicians”), the information may have been dismissed or even ridiculed, criminalized, and so on.

I will come back to the subject of criminalizing the methods of witch doctors. Let’s return to the subject of language as an instrument of influence and the use of “illogical, confusing, nonsense” language as an especially effective method of influence.

I think of political language as a great example. “We need to raise taxes so that the public will be wealthier.” How logical is that?

Of course, most political communications are not so plainly ironic as the above statement. One may need to spread their analysis across a few sentences (or even a few years of time) to notice the various ironies (logical contradictions).

However, the idea that ANY government program or intervention is going to contribute to the net wealth of a nation rests on the basic presumption that “we should impose taxes to spend that money to increase the wealth of the public.” It is the basic justification of ALL government spending, right? It is never concisely stated, but it is presumed and implied extensively. By merely presuming it and implying it, again, the normal process of logical reasoning may be bypassed.

Consider a government program which requires all people to spend money (such as on health insurance). Technically, the total increase in public spending forced by that program could be much higher than the government’s cost in spending taxpayer money to produce the rest of the forced spending. That means a greatly increased amount of total consumer spending (and thus GDP), though spending is not wealth. Forcing people to spend money on something does not increase net wealth. Forcing people to spend money on a particular set of things merely redistributes wealth.

The wealth of private citizens will be reduced and the wealth will increase of the particular commercial group that successfully lobbied for the “rescue intervention.” While a particular group of beneficiaries of a government program (such as first-time home buyers) may benefit from a government program, there is no way for an increase in the spending of taxpayer-funded programs to produce an increase in the wealth of taxpayers. Taxpayer-funded spending cannot increase overall taxpayer wealth. Taxpayer-funded spending MUST reduce overall taxpayer wealth, though the tax revenues may come from a specific tax, like property taxes or fuel taxes or voting poll tax.

I recognize that there are other forms of government revenue besides taxes, such as fines, fees, and confiscation. However, citizen-funded government spending MUST reduce the overall private wealth of the citizenry as a whole. It is a logical or mathematical absolute.

I’m not saying that public schools do not benefit citizens. Of course government spending such as on public schools benefits many citizens. However, public schools will benefit some citizens more than others, such as the staff of those public schools.

All public spending will benefit some parties more than others. That is why lobbying exists. Sometimes a particular government program will benefit many people a little or a few people immensely. If there were not massive benefits available through lobbying, there would be no lobbying. To put it another way, if there were not massive benefits available through bribery, there would be no bribery.

Next, I want to clarify something about the nature of governments and their function. I’d like to emphasize that none of the following is a criticism of governments in general or of any particular government (nor of the activities of lobbying or bribery). For people who are willing to simply notice what is clear and obvious about governments, the following could be immediately recognizable as “the most logical analysis of government that I have ever read,” even if at first challenging to your presumptions.

Governments are inherently systems of commercial favoritism. They take from some groups to give to others. They systematically redistribute wealth inequitably. Some governments favor particular industries through direct purchases by the government and of course with their regulatory favoritism (outlawing certain practices while authorizing and subsidizing others): missile manufacturers, public education, homeowners, licensed medical practitioners, etc….

For instance, witch doctors are not penalized (and ridiculed) because they cannot “cure incurable scurvy,” but because when witch doctors routinely cure “incurable scurvy,” that can be very bad for someone else’s business and reputation. In fact, the entire linguistic premise of “incurable disease” is just a presumption, and one that has been established as being at least occasionally inaccurate if not always false. So, a group like licensed medical doctors may form a group (AMA) to lobby for programs that benefit their industry, especially to protect them from free market competition.

Likewise, homeowners may be favored by governments through a large set of factors, including tax regulations that favor homeowners as well as bail-outs explicitly designed to raise the price of housing. Government programs to prevent massive waves of foreclosure also maintain “artificially” high real estate prices. In some cases like these, the obvious favoritism of government to particular commercial interests is quite explicit.

Why might renters not support government programs that raise rents and redistribute wealth from renters to owners? Why might owners of concentrated amounts of real estate spend millions of dollars to lobby governments to take actions to keep purchase prices rising (or flat) and to keep lease and rent prices high? Because if governments stopped pumping taxpayer money in to programs that promote high prices, prices might fall dramatically.

So, how is it that so many renters and people who lease commercial space would passionately promote government programs that raise rents and leases (costing them money)? Government propaganda can be extremely effective!

The masses typically do not see the obvious, thanks to the loyal influence of mainstream media. Further, homeowners may not want to admit that their past unearned capital gains may be largely due to government programs to redistribute wealth toward people who buy homes. Given that those government intervention programs also have a history of suddenly collapsing like a house of cards, homeowners may be especially afraid to recognize the simplicity of the unsustainability of government interventions to raise real estate prices.

Governments systematically redistribute wealth from certain groups to other groups. Obviously, without governments, there is not a big consumer demand for combat helicopters and nuclear weapons and aircraft carriers. It is also obvious that governments would want to be very intent on keeping those kinds of manufactured goods away from the open market. Governments may want to be the sole buyer of aircraft carriers. They may want a monopoly. They do not want just any nation or private party having a bunch of them, right?

That is because governments are not just any system of commercial favoritism, but systems of organized violence or organized coercion. They involuntarily redistribute wealth from particular groups (the involuntary underwriters) to other particular groups (such as the manufacturers of military technology).

Tax systems are systems of authorized extortion or racketeering. Those who do not participate are subject to various forms of punishment. Fines and the systems to collect fines are also systems of authorized extortion or racketeering. Governments are systems of extortion and racketeering  that authorize or license certain programs of extortion and racketeering and criminalize unauthorized systems as “unwelcome competition.”

When a crime syndicate offers “protection,” most of the protection is from other crime syndicates. In the case of governments, they protect citizens from foreign governments (some of which have nuclear weapons and aircraft carriers and so on) as well as “domestic threats” (such as unauthorized extortion rackets).

So, I have jokingly asked in the past questions like “should governments be violent?” It is like asking “should rabbits be mammals?”

Rabbits are mammals. Governments are violent.

Many governments have added to their effectiveness and efficiency by conducting programs of propaganda, such as public education systems, which promote particular presumptions and patterns of interpretation (perception). Through such “mind control” programming, governments not only influence perception, but action and results.

Governments influence (program, govern, dictate) how people experience reality, how they interpret reality, how they react to their interpretations, and what actions or behaviors the population (herd) manifests. Some governing systems (such as thugs and gangs and tribes) may rely primarily on violence. Other systems use language more than violence, but with the threat of violence always present and however frequently reminded.

Further, governments are not especially distinctive in their use of violence and language to influence. Every individual and every social group influences others (even within the same species).

Mothers influence children, such as a mother rabbit influencing baby rabbits. Farmers influence the activity of crops. Hunters influence their prey. Influence is essential.

When people use currency, they do so in cooperation with a government which creates the purchasing power of the currency. The foundation of the purchasing power of every currency is that the currency is accepted for the payment of taxes and any other court-ordered obligations.

Governments declare tax liability in to existence. Then governments declare a particular form of payment as the only acceptable form of payment (“legal tender for the discharge of debt claims”). Then, governments enforce their declarations through organized coercion.

A currency is a unit of the organized coercion of the system of forced wealth redistribution (the government) that enforces the purchasing power of that currency. Currency has power because of the mercenaries of organized coercion (sheriff deputies, KGB, USAF) that enforce the value of that currency. In the absence of an effective military to enforce the value of a currency, the currency ceases to have any functional value, such as when the Confederacy was defeated by the USA and confederate dollars instantly became worthless (or even illegal).

Hysteria is not inherently evil. Violence is not inherently evil (including the violence of a plant as it spreads its roots in to the soil). In fact, hysteria and violence and evil are all just categories in language. Evil just means “extremely discouraged” as in something “subject to produce very unfavorable results, including through penalties and punishments.”

Language organizes perception. In other words, language governs perception. Because language governs perception, language also governs behavior and results.

The issue of Logos is important. We can relabel it as logic or language. Logic governs perception. The Logos governs perception. The Word has authority over perception. Labels govern perception.

The word organizes the world (perception), which organizes behavioral response (reflex), producing the results of the reactive activity. Labeling is interpretative. Perceiving is interpreting. Labeling is perceiving.

Perceiving is the organizing of attention. Language organizes attention.

However, why take my word for it? After all, I might just be trying to influence you through the use of language, right?

Instead of asking me if language can influence attention, perception, and behavior, I invite you to ask Santa Claus. I was told by sources I trust that he is an authority on such matters.


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 293 other followers

%d bloggers like this: