Posts Tagged ‘Noam Chomsky’

Sanity or sincere gibberish?

June 27, 2013
Do you really care if people agree with you? Or do you just care what they do?
sincerity: the inability to recognize any alternative viewpoint as valid.
 
to Sanity?

to Sanity? (Photo credit: wadem)

 
There are a lot of humans, right? However, many of them do not even understand your language. They have no idea what you are saying or what I am writing. 
 
These construction in language are gibberish to them. They simply cannot decode the words in to ideas. So, these words do not influence their attention or perception or behavior.
 
Noam Chomsky at World Social Forum - 2003. Sou...

Noam Chomsky at World Social Forum – 2003. Source: Marcello Casal Jr/ABr, January/2003 (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

 
In contrast to those who do not even know your language, some of them use language similar to how you use language: similar patterns, similar phrases, and similar logical presumptions.  Some of them are going around with some set of ideals (some language patterns about what they imagine would be “better”) and then sorting through who agrees or disagrees with them.
 
They value the comfort of familiar language. They want to connect with people who appreciate their perspective, who value the patterns of words that they present, who value them (who agree with their self-image).
 
Wladss

Wladss (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

 
Have you noticed that you can create interpersonal repulsion simply through words? I sometimes have said things that scare people, that disturb them, that shock and horrify them. Sometimes I have done that accidentally and sometimes intentionally.
 
“You’re dumb. You’re wrong. You’re repulsive!”
 
 
Some people are unusually easy to insult. Some people are very easy to make mad. They can be quite “sensitive.”
 
Some people may seem very scared of getting mad, like they are already frustrated, but are putting a lot of energy in to suppressing their rage, pretending not to be angry, irritable, and disappointed. Others seem absolutely committed to finding something or someone to justify a complaint or criticism or even rage.
“You should not say things like that. If you do not have anything nice to say, then… then don’t even talk to me, you rude piece of crap!”
 
Ron Paul

Ron Paul (Photo credit: Gage Skidmore)

 
Obviously, it can be unfavorable to rile certain people. It can be favorable to keep certain phrases private, like your disappointment about your boss and their lack of effectiveness. 
 
It might even be useful to communicate in ways that are customized for a specific person or situation. It might be wise to occasionally consider “what could be a good way to produce the desired result? What would evoke in them the kind of experience that fits with my priorities? What might they want to hear? What do I want them to do and what do I want them to feel and what do I want them to hear?”
That is simply being selective and deliberate in one’s communication. That is being interested in effectiveness.
English: Barack Obama

English: Barack Obama (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Do you want to get hired for a job or project? If so, then what can you present to other people to promote that outcome? Which people would you communicate with? How? What would work to actually produce the result?
Do you want to produce an increase in sales of a particular product or service? If so, then what can you present to other people that will produce that increase?
Do you want to produce a surge of public support for a particular political policy? If so, then what spectacle or publicity stunt can you create that will create a media sensation in order to attract public attention, shift public perception, and even change behavior? To borrow a saying from Noam Chomsky, how can you “manufacture consent?”
GWB Stood Still

GWB Stood Still (Photo credit: monkey_bob99x)

Flags in the inauguration crowd

Flags in the inauguration crowd (Photo credit: binarydreams)

 
The purpose of communication is to produce results. The specific purpose of a particular communication is the actual result produced.
 
Do you want to know why you said something distinctive that may have surprised you and other people? Notice the results. The results that you produced are why you did whatever you did. In other words, isn’t it possible that you said the thing that surprised people because that is precisely what you wanted to do: to surprise them?
 
New York (1982) - Twin Towers

New York (1982) – Twin Towers (Photo credit: galabgal)

 
Is that an argument? Is that a scientific principle excluding all other possible theories?
 
No, it is one perspective or interpretation. The actual results were the purpose. So, if you have another purpose in mind as a current priority (like if you have other results in mind), then a new method may be relevant.
 
Japanese executioner prepares to behead a cond...

Japanese executioner prepares to behead a condemned Chinese man kneeling before his own grave, Tientsin China. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

 
“Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. By the way, that includes saying the same thing over and over again and expecting different results!”
 
What if I stop talking about my intention as being in conflict with the past? What if I say that if I made someone mad, I meant to do it? What if I claim that if I made someone sad or afraid or happy or curious, that is what I meant to do?
 
Obviously, I could also claim the opposite: “I admit that I made them feel guilty, but I did not want that. I admit that I made them feel relaxed, but I wanted something else completely.”
 
 
Those are two ways to relate to my past: it happened according to my will or it happened against my will. In other words, those are two ways to identify myself: I am powerful and responsible for the results that I have produced or I am a helpless victim whose life has been ruined by my life.
How can my life be ruined by my life? Isn’t that illogical?
Further, isn’t that kind of insanity extremely popular? Isn’t that pattern in language programmed constantly through culture: “apologize for your past. Apologize for your life!”
"A Kalighat image of the moment when the ...

“A Kalighat image of the moment when the government clerk, Nabin, stands poised to behead his wife Elokeshi with a fish knife. Wearing a burgundy sari against yellow skin tones, Elokeshi kneels before her husband with her face turned away and hand raised to ward off the blow. The black ‘holdall’ used by the painters to illustrate one of Nabin’s westernised accessories lies on the ground in front of Elokeshi whilst the umbrella, a further western attribute, hangs limply from his left hand.” (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

I can make a long list of regrets. Would you like to read it?
What are regrets? Regrets are things that happened in contrast to what I now say that I wanted then. Unless I say now that I wish now that something different had happened, then it is not a regret. Another word for regrets is “complaints.”
What if I was newly grateful for my past- not just as a recollection that I used to be grateful already? What if I suddenly appreciated my life just for really making my life what it is today? What if I acknowledge my life for being such a huge contribution to my life?
I know it sounds silly. I know that it may be more familiar to say “my past is ruining my life right now.” It might be very unfamiliar to be sane, to be grateful, to be self-affirming.
“What about what happened in 1978? What about what happened in 1789? Don’t we need to correct our past mistakes? In fact, don’t we need to present ourselves as victims that deserve special treatment and compensation and privileges?”
We could talk like any of that. If it produces the results that you value to talk like that, go ahead.
This image was selected as a picture of the we...

This image was selected as a picture of the week on the Malay Wikipedia for the 44th week, 2009. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

“Things right now are not how they should be- certain things in particular of course. My life is still a very serious problem!”
You know, that is truly a very fascinating way to label or identify or relate to life. I do believe that I have heard a very similar story (that myth) from you before. In fact, I have heard that same creative poetry from myself!
We could call it “a popular unsanity” or “the popular distress” or “the paradigm of the disturbed.” We could even call it “the plain and simple truth!”
However, if it is the truth, then why is anyone ever upset if someone does not agree strongly enough? If it is so self-evident, then why is it possible to have a different perspective? In other words, if it is universal, then why isn’t it universal?
Consensus is only the consensus because of popularity, not because of accuracy or precision. A consensus interpretation is still an interpretation. A consensus fiction is still a fiction. A consensus “truth” that fits the definition of insanity is still insane, even though it may also be a consensus “truth.”
Too bad this is a bit blurry. Taken by the Dir...

Too bad this is a bit blurry. Taken by the Director of “New World Order” for me. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

 

Do you remember ever getting upset that someone did not agree with you? Do you remember how sincere you were? 
 
Two sincere people who disagree can both argue that their perspective is established as accurate by their passionate sincerity. That may be what is otherwise known as insane (or at least immature).
 
Do you recognize now that sincerity is related to the experience of upset? Sincerity is easily threatened. Sincerity is already frightened. Sincerity is a pretense from the beginning: “This MUST be the way that it is because this is what is familiar to me!”
No, familiarity does not establish accuracy. Sincerity does not establish accuracy either. Sincerity establishes how easy it is for someone to get upset, to get threatened, to get defensive, to go insane with arrogant naivete.
“The truth must be true because EVERYONE knows that it is true! How DARE you have a different perspective?!?!”
Well, perhaps that is not the truth. Maybe that is just a consensus idea (ideal, myth, interpretation).
Alex Jones Tv 7_8_Alex Takes Your Calls Today

Alex Jones Tv 7_8_Alex Takes Your Calls Today (Photo credit: The Alex Jones Show)

If sincerity promotes producing the result you value most, so be it. If not, so be it.
 
To presume that others are always sincere may be less effective than to focus less on what they say and more on what they do. Actions are never “insincere.” Actual results are never “insincere.” 
 
Only words can be sincere or insincere. So what?
 
 
Sanity is not based on words. Sanity is not the result of words. Sanity is freedom from a popular delusion about words. 
 
Sanity is knowing that words are inherently symbolic codes. A code means anything that can mean something distinct from it’s actual appearance. It is like poetry. It can have more than one interpretation, more than one result, more than one meaning.
 
realamericans

realamericans (Photo credit: fsgm)

 
Words are not gibberish. That is just more insanity.
 
Words are tools for producing results. The actual sequence of sounds or letters may not be at all important. The result is what is important, right?
 
 
Can words point toward sanity? That might be possible.
 
Can words demonstrate or display sanity? That also might be possible.
 
Can specific words produce specific results? Some people have passionately denied that possibility.
 
 
“No, your honor, words are not important or influential and that is why I have no desire to make jokes about making a plea or praying for the mercy of the court. Further, I totally condemn the use of words and forever renounce all linguistic communication. From this moment forward, I will not ever speak or otherwise use language in any way, except perhaps to invoke my sacred right to remain silent. Of course, if I ever have the tragic misfortune of being spoken to, I promise that I will not understand the words used because there is no such thing as coherent language. Therefore, when there are words written on paper or on signs, I will certainly not decode them. As for numerals such as the number 8 or the number 1, I will also forget what the different shapes and sounds mean. All of life will be confusing gibberish to me. Your honor, please know that I say this from the bottom of my heart because I am committed to presenting myself as a deeply sincere person. I would NOT want anyone to accuse me of EVER being in the least insincere or ironic or playful. Furthermore, if anyone dares to question the sincerity of my declaration to never use language, which is the root of all evil, then I may be forced by my victimizer to resort to giving them a serious tongue-lashing. Frankly, I am deeply distressed, your honor, by the problem of the existence of language and thus I will do my part to prevent language from ever developing and causing any further influence on human perception or behavior. In conclusion, there is no such thing as reverse psychology and, even if there was, there should not be. And that’s why I am casting my vote today for the passage of the anti-lobbying bill to prevent bribery from destroying the eternal sanctity of our sacred temple of government sincerity.”
MikeCriss Blog - Alex Jones L'Inganno Di Obama

MikeCriss Blog – Alex Jones L’Inganno Di Obama (Photo credit: mikecrissflick)

 

“Evil corporations” and the strategic value of condemning your own “trade secret”

March 18, 2012

I began the following content as a commentary on this youtube video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=phCibwj396I&feature=share
If people with interest in commercial power wished to monopolize their power and marginalize opposition into indignant futility, would they (1) create a public relations propaganda program to tell people that the commercial power elite were really not so uniquely influential, but that they were under the influence of governments and also (2) create a public relations propaganda program to tell people that no one should have a particular interest in commercial power, that it is immoral and evil and shameful to do so or even talk about, and that the media and the government and churches (which all might be set up by those with commercial power) are the true heroic friends of the people and that the commercial powers were the enemies of the media, the government, and the churches, even though again the commercial powers may have set up the operations of media, governments, and churches as the public relations part of their commercial operations? By the way, did I mention that the commercial power elite are villains and should not have any influence because they have trained the masses to believe with blind faith that the commercial power elite should not have any influence, and such propaganda indoctrination is very deceptive and villainous, proving that they should not do it because all propaganda indoctrination clearly states that propaganda indoctrination is shameful and villainous and should never be hypocritical?

Also, beyond what I posted to youtube, I would like to add that governments (including armies and cops) should not ever use organized

Tom Hanks

Tom Hanks (Photo credit: Alan Light)

violence or organized coercion because organized violence and organized coercion should only be used for legitimate reasons like, um, tilling the soil violently with plows and shovels and bringing in a bunch of earthworms to loosen things up and so on, but of course only for legitimate purposes of food production, not for evil things like decorative horticulture, which is immoral and corrupt and taboo and forbidden by the holy scriptures of the US Constitution, except where void by local law and/or overturned by an improperly ratified treaty with the supreme court of the UN Justice League of Universal Justice and Justification and Super Hero cartoon characters featuring the voice of Tom Hanks, except of course where void by universal laws of gravitational electromagnetism, because, if there is one thing that I know for certain, it is that the infallible and sacred principles of science as it has been taught to the masses in public schools cannot possibly be influenced at all by political and commercial interests. That is why the history of science is totally consistent across millions of years with no progress whatsoever nor any innovation in technology, at least not since the discovery of the sun in they year 12,423 B.C., with never a single instance of debate or controversy or punitive executions of Copernicus or Galileo and so on, you know, just to make an example of how the new religion of “popular science” is obviously above the influence of any mere humans.

English: colour portrait of Ross Perot

Image via Wikipedia

By the way, if there is one thing that I know for sure, it is that words are not code, nor are they at all important in human life. In fact, many very intelligent theorists such as Noam Chomsky and H. Ross Perot claim that words do not actually exist and that the alleged existence of words (such as “God”) was all along just a conspiracy of some international pirates with some evil commercial interests having to do with the herding of the masses, gasp, possibly in the service of their own evil commercial interests!

Chomsky at the World Social Forum (Porto Alegr...

Image via Wikipedia

Now, wherefore and thereby, in the Name of neurotic perfectionism and the superficial appearance of charitableness, these humans must be stopped immediately, right? That is why I am declaring the announcement of a new government to protect humanity from humanity, and this government promises to be more better than all the others, more compassionate, more democratic, more republican, more socialist, more libertarian, more patriotic, more maverick, more conservative, more liberal, more charitable, more violent, more diplomatic, more coercive, more peaceful, more honest, more secure, more deceptive, more prosperous, and generally more different than all the other ones just like it, such as the “institutional revolutionary party” of Mexico, which has got to be one of the best names of a political party in human history. However, I promise to find a better and different name for this entirely new, radically distinctive, and totally apolitical party. In fact, maybe we will call it the lobbyist party, so as to distinguish it very clearly from all the others.
first published on May 22, 2011
Related articles

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 755 other followers

%d bloggers like this: