Posts Tagged ‘presumption’

harmonious humility and hysterical animosity

August 16, 2013
Myths of the Near Future

Myths of the Near Future (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

 

 

English: The arrogance of youth. Despite numer...

English: The arrogance of youth. Despite numerous notices warning of the dangers of approaching too closely to cliff edges on Trwyn y Witch,these lads stroll blithely along on the very edge. A few days after this photograph was taken, another appeared in a national newspaper of youths sitting on the edge of cliffs at Beachy Head! (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

 

 

The more terrified I am that some presumption of mine may be inaccurate, then the more tenaciously I may defend against perceived criticism. I may defend by condemning others for (allegedly) condemning me, by argumentatively justifying, and by ridiculing perceived critics for some past point of disagreement. That intense reaction can be called shame or guilt or pride or ego.

 

 

 

I resist the exploration of my presumption. I present my sincerity as something deserving respect. I focus away from the accuracy of presumptions toward my sincerity, my righteousness, what is familiar to me.

 

 

 

My process is terrified, desperate, and, in the extreme, raging passionately with sincere self-righteousness. It is hysterical.

 

 

Stuff your eyes with wonder . . . live as if y...

Stuff your eyes with wonder . . . live as if you’d drop dead in ten seconds. See the world. It’s more fantastic than any dream made or paid for in factories. Thanks Sweet Arrogance for the Editing + Tittle (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

 

 

 

My myths are not questionable because they are not myths. My myths are not open to exploration. I do not have any myths. I do not have any presumptions. Any implication that I might is an accusation deserving to be attacked viciously.

 

 

 

A drawing of a dining fly tent

A drawing of a dining fly tent (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

 

 

And so there is the story of the tent built on dry ground and the tent built on mud. Which one is more steady?

 

 

With the tent built on dry ground, the stakes stayed firmly in the ground. The ropes of the tent stayed tight. The wind came but the tent just flapped a bit and remained stable.

 

 

Wooden stake holding guy rope

Wooden stake holding guy rope (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

 

 

With the tent erected in the mud, the stakes went in very easily, but they were so loose that heavy rocks were put on top of them to keep the stakes in place. The ropes of the tent sagged, but there was enough tension on the ropes to raise the tent (after a great deal of time and effort).

 

 

Then the winds came, plus more rain. Inside of the tent there were a small crew of people who had raised the tent. The youngest one asked “why is the tent sagging?”

 

 

The Tent

The Tent (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

 

 

This was obviously just too much! The elder shouted “who do you think you are to dare criticize the way that we raised the tent? We have the right number of ropes. We have the right number of stakes. We even made an extra effort to put stones across the stakes to hold them in securely. You just do not appreciate how hard we have worked on this tent! You are just a negative person who is investing in fear instead of unconditional love.”

 

 

This is the face of arrogance

This is the face of arrogance (Photo credit: phunkstarr)

 

 

The young questioner was a bit stunned. A different approach might go better. “I do appreciate your hard work. I simply am curious whether you agree that the tent is sagging more than usual?”

 

 

English: This picture is taken with help of Mr...

English: This picture is taken with help of Mr Shiva Shrestha (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

 

 

The reaction was even more intense. “Have you ever heard that curiosity killed the cat? You are rebellious. You are arrogant. If anything goes wrong with the tent, it must be because of your lack of loyalty. Also, four months ago, you made a mistake in the raising of a tent and I have always wondered about that. Was it intentional? Did you sabotage this tent again? Is that what you are trying to confess?”

 

 

The young questioner said “Wow, it is getting really stressful in here. Does anyone else need to go out of the tent to pee like I do?”

 

 

The elder screamed “hold it! You need to answer the question whether you sabotaged the tent. No one let this one out until we get the answer! You have disrupted the harmony of our crew. Isn’t harmony important to you? First, you have brought hysteria and animosity to our crew. Now you want to destabilize everything by going outside to pee. Look, can’t you see that this tent is unstable? We cannot let you out to pee because all of that zipping and unzipping might be enough to bring down the whole house of cards, you idiot!”

 

 

 

Look up on others (DSC2773)

Look up on others (DSC2773) (Photo credit: Fadzly @ Shutterhack)

Illustration from a collection of myths.

Illustration from a collection of myths. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

 

 

So, it is not always so obvious when there is a hysterical avoidance of the questioning of a presumption (such as whether a particular tent is sturdy). However, now that we have reviewed an example of hysterical animosity (as distinct from harmonious humility), let’s review again the original statements. Perhaps they will be more clear for you this time.

 

 

 

The more terrified I am that some presumption of mine may be inaccurate, then the more tenaciously I may defend against perceived criticism. I may defend by condemning others for (allegedly) condemning me, by argumentatively justifying, and by ridiculing perceived critics for some past point of disagreement. That intense reaction can be called shame or guilt or pride or ego.
 
I resist the exploration of my presumption. I present my sincerity as something deserving respect. I focus away from the accuracy of presumptions toward my sincerity, my righteousness, what is familiar to me.
 
My process is terrified, desperate, and, in the extreme, raging passionately with sincere self-righteousness. It is hysterical.
 
My myths are not questionable because they are not myths. My myths are not open to exploration. I do not have any myths. I do not have any presumptions. Any implication that I might is an accusation deserving to be attacked viciously (of course!).
Illustration from a collection of myths.

Illustration from a collection of myths. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

 

 

 

 

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.

innocence, resistance, and responsibility – 3 ways of relating to change

May 29, 2012
Behavioral Economics: How to Make the Right Bu...

Behavioral Economics: How to Make the Right Buying Decisions (Photo credit: BankSimple)

Have you been surprised in recent years at changing patterns of economic behavior that have influenced your business and finances? If you were surprised, then how well did you really know the market for your business?

Have you been merely curious about what is changing or confused and anxious? Have you been frustrated and bitter- not just disappointed and humble- but even resistant and resentful?

Many people may dismiss or even ridicule information that frightens them. It may be rare for someone to have the courage to face (or even to proactively seek) information that might lead them to change their thinking and behavior to promote their well-being.

What I just said may seem a little strange. People may resist being attentive to their well-being. People may be attentive to conforming to a familiar group instead of being attentive to what actually works well for them personally. In other words, they may value familiarity over functionality and prosperity.

So, if you thought you knew your market well, but soon you were surprised by what actually happened (which was different from your thoughts and presumptions), then you may have been confused. Confusion is quite distinct from mere ignorance. Confusion means that a presumption has been made which is false, but there is still a confusion or lack of recognition about which presumption is the false one. There has been a confusing of one thing for another, a mistaking of one thing for another.

Once the false presumption is recognized as false, confusion ends. Clarity and openness lead naturally to curiosity.

I just presented three ways of relating to change. First is innocence: a change is new and curious- a new opportunity to learn. Second is resistance: change is unfamiliar and troubling and shameful- something to resist and avoid and deny and ridicule. Third is responsibility: change is constant and eventually some change will probably be confusing, but confusion is just an indicator of a mistaken presumption and the responsible person knows that it is functional to admit ignorance with an interest in correcting any inaccurate presumptions. Confusion is not shameful. Admitting confusion and ignorance is an important step in maturing in to courage and responsibility.

 

J.R. to Rob Godwin: “[Would you] write me a brief testimonial indicating a spontaneous recollection of what you recall me saying when- even if vague?”

Rob: “I just remember the last time we hung out, at a Mexican restaurant in downtown Glendale, and you suggested that I not buy a house, because it was a bubble that was going to burst soon. That was probably mid 2004, and it did peak about 1.5 years later….

I remember thinking at the time, that things were going so well here, how could they stop? I bet a lot of people who lived through the Roaring’ 20’s thought the same thing, LOL. I think the 90’s and early 00’s were like that, where everyone kept saying that things were different, that the old economic models didn’t apply, that they’d been figured out by “experts”. But things did crash just the same, so I guess we weren’t immune to it afterall. I guess the larger the peak, the deeper the recession.”

rebels and kings, propaganda and language, magic and traffic signals ;)

March 2, 2012
Dangerous Risk Adrenaline Suicide by Fear of F...

Dangerous Risk Adrenaline Suicide by Fear of Falling (Photo credit: epSos.de)

This is the story of the rebel and the one-eyed king. A rebel is someone who has been told by others that the rebel is not like the others. However, being told that one is unlike others is not enough to be a rebel.

In order to be a rebel, one must also accept other people’s identifying of someone as a rebel to be the valid interpretation or perhaps not even an interpretation at all, but the actual identity, the inherent reality, the eternal truth. In order to be a rebel, one must think as a rebel, talk as a rebel, walk as a rebel, and act as a rebel in all ways.

North Carolina Rebel Flag
Image via Wikipedia

In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king. The king is the one who sees what no one else sees, who thinks what no one else thinks, who speaks as no one else speaks, and who acts how no one else acts, perhaps even in all ways.

Many people claim to be rebels, as they emphasize how different other people are from them and how different they are from other people. Many people also claim to want to become kings. However, who dares to rebel against rebellion?

At first, the rebel did not even know what a rebel is. The rebel just lived a quiet, simple life inside the protective belly of the rebel’s mother. It was sometime around when the rebel landed on the shores of the earth that something quite magical happened.

The rebel was approached by a wizard who gave the rebel some magical instruments for distinguishing what is safe and what is dangerous. The rebel had one magic lens for identifying things that are safe and another magic lens for identifying things that are dangerous. One lens saw only blue and one lens saw only red.

The wizard called these magical instruments “glasses” and placed these two lens in front of each of the eyes of the rebel. Then, the wizard said “these lenses will always stay on you or else you will instantly die.”

Texas Rebel Flag
Image via Wikipedia

So, the rebel lived for quite a while with the special skill of being able to identify certain things as safe and certain other things as dangerous. There were safe places and dangerous places. There were safe people and dangerous people. There were safe ideas and dangerous ideas.

Generally, anything familiar was safe and anything unfamiliar was dangerous. Familiar places and familiar people and familiar ideas were safe. Also, anything that familiar people claim to be dangerous must be dangerous- like traffic racing by on the street or power outlets in the wall or knives or battery acid or not putting the lid tightly on the messy things or coloring on the blank side of daddy’s work papers.

Also, a few things were extremely safe while a few things were extremely dangerous. At first, there was just the two categories of safe and unsafe, then increasing precision and clarity in just how safe or how dangerous something is.

For a long time, there was only good and bad. However, soon, out on the far edges of good and bad, there was also evil and holy.

The rebel noticed that at least sometimes it was really most important to identify what is risky. When there are a lot of safe things and even just one risky thing, it can be very important to know which one is risky. One risky thing can functionally cancel a bunch of safe things, kind of like driving with a seatbelt on (which is safe) while having your headlights on (which is also safe) but then driving the wrong way on a busy one way street or ignoring the red traffic light and red stop sign by driving out in to an intersection when lots of traffic is speeding across it in a different direction.

Traffic lightsHaving lots of safe things are wonderful. However, knowing what is risky can actually be much more relevant.

So, the rebel got extremely good at identifying risky, dangerous, bad, evil, wrong, unfamiliar things. In fact, the rebel realized that it was generally safer to just presume that any unfamiliar thing was risky, rather than risk not recognizing it as risky and getting surprised. If something is safely blue, it must first conclusively be proven to not be red.

However, the rebel also started to presume that if something is ever identified as safely blue, then it will always be safely blue. If something has ever been categorized as safely blue, then for it to be re-categorized as red requires a lot. First, to make a blue thing red means to cover it with a lot of red tape, which requires at least four committee meetings, seven bureaucratic reviews, the signed approval of three levels of supervisors, plus a self-addressed stamped envelope and a money-order to cover all processing fees.

Therefore, in 1999 and afterwards, airline stocks and tech stocks were presumed blue until proven red. In the next few years, real estate was presumed blue until proven red. More recently, prices of gold were presumed blue until proven red.

In fact, anyone who suggests that something that is obviously safely blue could become red must obviously be a red person. Things cannot just suddenly become red. That is impossible.

Even a green traffic light must become yellow before it can change to red. How can a green light ever be wrong? Green lights are clearly safely blue!

English: Irish language stop sign with text &q...
Image via Wikipedia

Plus, if a green light was ever red, that would only be because of a very obvious siren and flashing lights. Regular people cannot just drive right past stop signs and red lights. That is not only wrong but illegal, which means impossible.

Therefore, real estate, stock markets, and gold are inherently blue. Once they are blue, they are always blue.

If they were going to change to red, then there would have to be sirens and flashing lights to warn everyone else that some red rebel was about to drive the wrong way down a one way street. After all, it is called a one way street for a reason. People (or elephants- whatever) cannot just cross a street in any old direction that the one way street does not go. That would be unfamiliar, which means impossible.

Anyway, at some point, the rebel realized that the whole world was red and the rebel was the only blue thing in the world. Then, the rebel realized that the rebel was actually not even in the real world at all.

The rebel only existed in the impossible world. In the real world, red is red and blue is blue, while rebellion is just rebellion. In the impossible world, rebellion can be safely blue or rebellion can be dangerously red, depending on what someone says is impossible.

In other words, in the real world, things are just whatever they are. However, in language, a particular thing can be categorized in a variety of contrasting ways (warm, heavy, soft, red, etc) and it is the linguistic categorizing of things that MAKES things from being what they are in to becoming the symbolic categories that they are called, which is of course totally impossible.

So, red and blue are fundamentally real. However, rebel is just a category in language. There is no such thing as someone who is inherently a rebel. Different things get categorized differently at different times by different people. Also, the same thing can change.

For instance, a white shirt can be blue in a blue light and then red in a red light. A picture frame can hold pictures of radically different things. The reflection in a wall mirror can change- such as if I change my position so that I see a different angle of reflection. Or, a person can change clothes and look in to a mirror, but even as what is in the mirror changes, the mirror is still just mirroring. The mirror appears to change, but does it change or just keep mirroring?

Now, you can imagine how upset the rebel was when the rebel realized that the rebel was actually not a rebel. The rebel was just a process of categorizing things linguistically as either blue or red, good or bad, safe or dangerous, evil or holy, familiar or unfamiliar, impossible or possible, rebel or not rebel and so on.

When the rebel realized that the magic eyeglasses that the wizard had given to the rebel were broken, everything was suddenly purple. Purple is a mixture of blue and red. How can everything be both blue and red at the same time? How can everything be both safe and dangerous?

Was the wizard really a blue wizard or perhaps actually a red one? What if the wizard was really a redman Native American or a red communist or a red-head wearing a blue wig?

What if everything is inherently purple? What if the rebel is the one who says what is a purple rebel and what is a purple non-rebel? What if the rebel is the one who says what is safe and what is dangerous? What if safe things can be called dangerous and dangerous things can be called safe?

What if the rebel could ever be wrong? What if the rebel could categorize things as ever having been red and then never look at them again to see what color they are now?

Frankly, that would not be very blue. That could be quite dangerous.

Suddenly, the rebel realized that the rebel’s own system of presuming that once something is categorized as blue, then it is always blue- well, that system of presuming was a very red system. Things could be called blue by someone that the rebel identifies as blue,

English: Helm of Awe (ægishjálmr) - magical sy...

Image via Wikipedia

and then the rebel could presume that they are blue forever.

So, the label of safe is distinct from the reality of safe. Words are labels. Labels are symbolic codes for influencing behavior. Words are not inherently safe or inherently dangerous. Words are inherently words.

How do words influence behavior? Well, calling something red tend to promotes the presumption that the thing called red is actually red. Calling something a rebel tends to promote the presumption that the thing called rebel is actually a rebel.

All labels promote the presumption that the label and the thing labeled are a match, like that the thing labeled fits the category of the label.

However, traffic lights are not inherently green or inherently red. They have a tendency to change.

Saying “the traffic light is red” does not imply anything but current redness. Further, saying something is red does not make it red if it is not red.

Rebels are people who pretend or presume that the label applied to something is more important than the reality of the something. Oddly enough, there may be a whole lot of rebels in the world. Some rebels say that they are not rebels and some rebels say that they are rebels, but all of the rebels are alike in the fact of their rebellions and their rebelliousness.

They presume that labels are not just labels. They pretend that realities can be inherently changed by changing labels.

Labels, however, are (ultimately) for changing behavior. When a realtor says that real estate is always blue, that may be because they are a realtor with a personal interest in producing the behavior of aggressive buying of real estate. Because realtors may also want to believe that they are inherently blue people, they may target evidence for their bias and interpret everything relative to favoring their bias.

Other people who say that real estate is always blue are people who are already invested in real estate. They tend to want real estate to already be blue, or, if not already blue, to become blue as fast as possible.

So, some people may say “we will make real estate blue again for you.” These people are called politicians.

Politicians may claim to be able to make real estate permanently blue, as well as stock markets and economies and of course words. Politicians may claim to be able to know which words are inherently blue and which are inherently red.

In other words, politicians can tell us which words to fear and which words to trust. Politicians include all forms of mass media from advertising to public schooling to mainstream religious institutions.

From them, we can learn which people are inherently blue and which are inherently red. We can learn which investments are inherently blue and which are inherently red. We can learn which colors are inherently safe and which colors are inherently dangerous.

Of course, one who rebels against rebellion may think “those people who do that are very red.” Actually, that is not a very original

English: Yellow Stop sign: a recolored version...
Image via Wikipedia

thought.

One who really rebels against rebellion- who is not just identifying as a rebel, but is really rebelling- may recognize that all labeling is just labeling. Influencing behavior with words is just influencing behavior with words.

Promoting real estate as blue is just promoting real estate as blue. In contrast, researching the reality of real estate markets is just researching the reality of real estate markets. Many realtors and homeowners may dismiss or even attack research in to the reality of real estate market trends, and label such research as red, but that is just them labeling, dismissing, or attacking.

Investing attention, faith, and money in politicians and their promises is just investing attention, faith, and money in politicians and their promises. Investing attention, faith, and money in researching reality is just investing attention, faith, and money in researching reality.

This has been the story of the rebel and the one-eyed king. A rebel is someone who has been told by others that the rebel is not like the others. However, being told that one is unlike others is not enough to be a rebel.

In order to be a rebel, one must also accept other people’s identifying of someone as a rebel to be the valid interpretation or perhaps not even an interpretation at all, but the actual identity, the inherent reality, the eternal truth. In order to be a rebel, one must think as a rebel, talk as a rebel, walk as a rebel, and act as a rebel in all ways.

In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king. The king is the one who sees what no one else sees, who thinks what no one else thinks, who speaks as no one else speaks, and who acts how no one else acts in all ways.

Many people claim to be rebels, as they emphasize how different other people are from them and how different they are from other people. Many people also claim to want to become kings. However, who dares to rebel against rebellion?

English: LED traffic light in Forest Hill, New...

Image via Wikipedia

Who dares to be dismissed or even attacked? Who dares to be called a rebel (or anything else) without dismissing or attacking the labeling? Who knows the difference between symbolic labels designed to influence behavior and any other of the many ways to influence behavior?

Who dares to let the realtors and homeowners believe that real estate is blue when it is red? Who dares to even hire politicians to tell the realtors and homeowners that the politicians have identified the rebels who are responsible for the recent freakish redness of real estate and that the heroic politicians are taking all necessary actions to defeat those red rebels and return real estate to its natural and permanent blueness? Who dares to promote the future blueness of real estate while recognizing it’s increasing redness?

Who dares to rebel against rebellion very quietly? Who dares not to rebel against rebellion at all?

Let the rebels rebel. Let the mainstream flow with gravity toward the ocean. Let the rebellious waves claim to resist the ocean. Let all of those who claim to be rebels against blueness claim to be rebels against blueness.

When the waves reach the shore, the waves naturally reveal the tide. It does not require any labels to see the reality of the tide as the reality of the tide.

Those who worship labels just worship labels. Red is not a permanent quality, and neither is blue. Red and blue are just waves within a tide.

See labels as just labels. In a herd of people who act as if they are blind to the reality of what labels are, the one who sees the reality of labels is king.

The waves naturally reveal the tide, without any labels required. The king, however, may be invisible to those who are blind, for the blind are looking for the king amongst the people who claim to be kingly: the politicians. The king knows to look for the king in the most impossible of all places: within the one who may have been claiming to be a rebel- within one’s own self.

What could move the waves except the ocean? Is it not the politicians who are like the waves claiming to lead the ocean to the shore? Or, does the ocean lead the waves?

Have you ever seen a mighty wave that was far from a mighty ocean? The further that a wave gets from the ocean, the more distinct it may seem as just a wave, but the less mighty.

Proximity to a mighty ocean is what makes a wave mighty. There is no ocean wave without the ocean.

Do not be just a momentary wave. Be the tide. Even be the ocean.

www.OneEyedKingsWealthClub.com

First light would seem a good time to hunt in ...

Image via Wikipedia

Related articles

The shaky faith of the angry

January 22, 2012

The shaky faith of the angry

Have you ever been so angry that you were just shaking? Imagine some politicians debating angrily and shaking their fingers at each other: one says “I personally blame you completely for creating this problem,” then, in response, Ron Paul gets so furious that he shakes and he says “WHAT? How can you blame me? I voted against everything bad and for everything good. The real problem is politicians like you who blame other politicians for blaming other people for causing the real problems that they say are the real problems when in fact, once the accusations are removed, those so-called problems are just developments as in circumstances.”
Okay, of course, politicians like Ron Paul would probably not say that. They are too busy relating to reality as a bunch of problems, then prioritizing the various problems, then valiantly trying to solve them or at least to look valiant to themselves while they try to solve them.
I call that vanity as in pride. I began studying the subject a long time ago when I too began valiantly saving the world from all of its problems, or at least trying to look good while I tried to look like I was solving at least one actual problem.
Ron Paul at a rally in the Nashville War Memor...

Image via Wikipedia

My grandmother Edith was not impressed by all of that. One day shortly after I entered college, she said to me something like this: “oh, you are such a proud little do-gooder, aren’t you?”
“WHAT?” was of course my reply. Then I thought silently to myself “but no, I am NOT argumentative! Ron Paul may be argumentative, but certainly not me.”
I could be a very angry youngster at times. Further, in some ways, I did not really grow up much in the next decade. Or the one after that.
However, now I finally understand what she was referencing. I was following a program of what to be proud about, what to be interested in, and what to do to fit in (at least to fit in to that program of how to be perceived as a do-gooder).
She probably asked me how was college and what had I been doing. I told her that I volunteered to go to a beach and clean up trash with a bunch of other college students, mostly young ladies who would be wearing much less during the volunteering outing than I was used to seeing them wearing. Of course, I may not have described it precisely like that to her. Anyway, with all my pride at cleaning up the beach like any good boy should do, she responded with “Grow up, boy! By the way, you look thin. How many push-ups can you do?”
I was startled. I was stunned. I was offended. I was insulted. I was angry.
She was my grandmother. She was supposed to be nice to me. She was supposed to soothe me. She was supposed to validate me. At least those were the kinds of things that I might have said to myself.
So, let’s talk briefly about faith and anger. Sometimes people talk about faith a lot but they get irritated or angry if anyone questions their logic. In other words, they have confused faith with something that involves presumptions and logic. Their faith is rooted in some particular evidence. Their faith is about a logical deduction based on that evidence. That’s normal, but that is not what I mean by faith. I might call that a mere belief or presumption.
Faith is the natural result of experience. If I have direct experience with some subject, then do I get irritated or angry if someone questions my experience? Do I have shaky faith that is actually just a belief or presumption? Do I have an anxiety about convincing other people to agree with me? Do I crave their approval? Do I disapprove of anyone who does not share my particular form of devotion or fanaticism or ideology? Do I criticize and complain as a ritual of my religion based on belief and presumption and idealistic mythology?
The disapproval and argumentativeness of someone who craves validation is just a sign of their craving. That would apply to me as well as anyone else.
It is one thing to go to beaches for any reason whatsoever. It is another thing to whine about other people going to beaches and leaving trash there. Whining can be annoying. Which is more annoying: the trash on the distant beach or the whining about it for hours and weeks?
I’m not whining about whining either (though I may have done that a few times as well). If someone whines and someone else validates their whining, that is entirely possible. It may not be very valuable to me, but my valuing of something is a distinct issue.
I could value some possibility as a thing to suppress or to ignore or to encourage and promote. Any of those are possible- yes, even suppressing or opposing something.
If Ron Paul wants to oppose all government programs that redistribute wealth to particular exclusive recipients from particular select sources of government revenues, that is possible. I may or may not choose to actively question whether there have any been any government programs that did not redistribute wealth to particular exclusive recipients from particular select sources of government revenues.
I might choose to invest my time and energy to question something or oppose it or promote it or ignore it. I might choose to promote particular systematic redistributions of wealth toward particular recipients and from particular sources. That could be in the form of the politics of involuntary redistribution or in the form of operating a business and soliciting customers through things like advertising and referrals.
Maybe my grandmother was actually angry at me for being such a wuss (a “good” boy). She was not angry as in abusive, but maybe she was just angry as in disappointed. “Is that all you’ve been doing in college? Really? That sounds rather boring. Don’t you have any dramatic adventures for sharing to amuse your dear old granny?”
“Um, well, not that I am going to tell you, Granny. I’m only going to tell you about picking up trash from the beach. Given your response to that story, I think that whole topic of conversation is already over!” ;)

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 291 other followers

%d bloggers like this: