Posts Tagged ‘problem’

How idealism leads to confusion, distress, guilt, blame, and ill will

December 21, 2013

Emperor Fristchler started this conversation, by commenting on the below image:

Pretty cool right? Hail to Caesar!!!! Now spend the rest of your time and energy kissing everybody’s ass just to be next to broke anyways….great plan….ready, break! ….

let’s all create a world where wealth is God, where bread is my idol and that way we can rest peacefully and comfortably in our own delusion…wow why didn’t somebody think of this plan sooner. Only 7 billion people have but you would think more would. God bless Caesar.

Julius Caesar, Summer garden, Saint-Petersburg

Julius Caesar, Summer garden, Saint-Petersburg (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

How to create your own Personal Jesus (savior)? Which we all will anyhow… one question though: who needs saved? And from what? Your own idealism?

Let go now….surrender….jump off the cliff and trust that you don’t need no stinking idealism (movie quote: “I don’t need no stinking badges!”) or therefore a savior…just turn dough into bread and then bread into wine and then worship it the rest of your lives or live life within the smoke and mirrors.

JR replies:

Inequality is mathematically impossible. That is why we must devote our lives not to practical matters, but to saving the world from a mathematical impossibility.

Or was it equality that is mathematically impossible? Eh, I forget which.

Either way, alertness and clarity are not important. Contempt is holy.

Wealth

Wealth (Photo credit: alexjtam)

What we should do is follow the programming of the elite which is that we should focus on some idealism about wealth. “People pay too much attention to wealth!” Aha- that is an excellent idealism, so try that one.

People who use the word wealth are the problem. People who use the word idealism are the problem. People who use the words idealistic contempt are the problem.

If it was not for language, we would not have all of these problems, right? If it was not for breathing and oxygen and the solar system, then things would not be so flipping complicated and that is why I am disappointed with how frustrated you should be, so that you can be more like me!

Whatever the problem is, there clearly is one, right? Also blame cannot be the problem. Vilification is not it either. Those are unrelated to each other, to me, and to problems.

The only problem is wealth, which is evil, and the only problem is a particularly evil distribution of wealth, and a particular idealism about the evil distribution of evil wealth, and a particular contempt derived from some linguistic idealism about the very evil distribution of wealth which obviously should not be how it should not be.

So, I am sure that there is a problem and all that matters is that we make up one (not two!) and then operate in distress to save the world from it, or to prevent it, or to reverse it. Distress is the answer- not agonizing! Agonizing is in no way related to distress or confusion, so stop saying that please!

Awareness, alertness, clarity, and noticing the function of things are the only problem. In fact, a really old tradition has a written document that says so in a language that I do not personally understand, but I still KNOW what it says because this one other person who is not fluent in that language either said so very confidently.

People should not be so confused by religious rituals, legal codes, jokes, psychological warfare, delusions, or reverse psychology.
They are not designed specifically to cause confusion, so why is everyone so argumentative over “what does the word gristibular REALLY mean?”

Obviously, it is a real word, so it just means gristibular. In every language that has that word in it, it means the exact same thing. Everyone who uses it- no matter what culture or situation or context or connotation- everyone knows that gristibular is a verb that means “to argue the right way over which definition of a word is the only right one, thereby identifying who is a traitor to all things that are holy and therefore should be immediately condemned for using the wrong definition and ruining my life forever, resulting in me probably going to hell when I die and being trapped in argumentative distress and idealism and confusion and bliss and gratitude.”

People keep acting like it is a code and it could mean more than one thing, but if there is one thing that I know about codes, it is that they do not mean more than one thing. This is ridiculous and far too symbolic, plus slightly ironic, but since I do not have a sense of humor, I do not even use that word.

You know the one I mean. Don’t make me say it again!

You are just trying to cause a bunch of fake drama again, aren’t you? You are a DISTRACTER!

In conclusives, confusion is the problems, not blame. We must prevent it, save the world from it, and experience distress about how confusion is the cause of misinterpretation, naive foolishness, and lack of comprehension.

Ready… break! <CLAP>

Why do the players on the Pittsburgh Steelers football team struggle against the other team? Why don’t they all just stay on the bench and watch the game?

Plus, what if the other team loses? Won’t they feel bad? They should be guilty for scoring more points than the other team. They are selfish and competitive and it is not CHRISTIAN to be so much like how they should not be.

They are too idealistic. THAT is their problem!

Wealth in America

Wealth in America (Photo credit: uvw916a)

That is why there are too many players on the field. There should not be 11 or 22. There should be zero. Everyone should have equality, which means that there should be no one on the field, no one watching, and no one doing anything interesting because that is being a DISTRACTER and an AMUSER and an ENTERTAINMENTAL.

Avoid that. Or else you will go to hell in a retard helmet. That is far worse than in a handbasket.

 

lyrics: “To need a savior, get a problem”

November 9, 2013
Every savior      must have someone       to save from a problem       how about a big one
 
The Circumcision of Christ

The Circumcision of Christ (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

You’re gonna go to hell when you die        if you don’t do   the things that we tell you
You’re gonna live in fear your whole life    until you join the club of the King Jews
There are some rules and also rewards        (like 2 parades and 30 virgins when you die)
English: Santa Claus as illustrated in , v. 52...

English: Santa Claus as illustrated in , v. 52, no. 1344 (December 3 1902), cover. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

First what we do is slice some skin off the end there-    everybody does it; it’s not hazing; it’s tradition
Next, here’s the system. We claim authority         over all people across the earth
God told Noah to bring order to the chaos      so we invented courts of organized violence
We call it justice, because it sounds better       but the bottom line is we use force to perform
whatever the judge orders the soldiers to do….   when we do it, it’s taxation- not extortion (that’s different!)
 We set up the Vatican to create a monopoly     by killing any Christian who commits usury
If you want a loan, then we can help you…                as long as you qualify
Every savior      must have someone       to save from a problem       how about a big one
hell or heaven   it’s just one or the other        so you better worry           about how to win
A man dressed up as Santa Claus fundraising fo...

A man dressed up as Santa Claus fundraising for Volunteers of America on the sidewalk of street in Chicago, Illinois, in 1902. He is wearing a mask with a beard attached. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

You’re gonna go to heaven if you’re good.      Santa Claus said so and I’m saying it again.
It’s in the Bible. Someone said it, then we wrote it down… and made some translations of the magic words you should worship
It’s not a myth, it’s more credible than science        but when science agrees, then we love to point that out
We block the rage of the masses then program contempt. The herds of human cattle obey to avoid their shame
Every savior      must have someone       to save from a problem       how about a big one
hell or heaven   it’s just one or the other        so you better worry           about how to win
how to get out of hell    then get in to heaven    cause wherever you are   is how it should not be
how it should be    is more important than reality     so reject your life    and struggle for our ideal
adult circumcision, drawing of a tomb/wall pai...

adult circumcision, drawing of a tomb/wall painting from Ankhmahor, Sakkara (Saqqarah), Egypt. Oldest known illustration of circumcision (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

You’re gonna go to hell when you die        if you don’t do   the things that we tell you

Every savior      must have someone       to save from a problem       how about a big one

You’re gonna go to hell when you die        if you don’t do   the things that we tell you

Every savior      must have someone       to save from a problem       how about a big one

English: plastibell circumcision day 5 postope...

English: plastibell circumcision day 5 postoperative (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

English: circumcision scar

English: circumcision scar (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

The perfect problem: humorous, linguistic socializing

September 6, 2012
Sunlight Feed

Sunlight Feed (Photo credit: kennytyy)

In reply to The Pegasean (https://jrfibonacci.wordpress.com/2012/04/29/social-animals-and-cultural-evolution-of-herds/#comment-9543):

Thank you very much for you comments. I agree with you without any exception whatsoever, except perhaps for the following long list of exceptions:

 

I question the proposition that there is a “whatever [which] formed our universe” that is distinct from the universe itself. The idea of a created reality is logically quite flimsy. If reality is an effect, then what created the alleged cause of the alleged effect labeled as reality? Further, what caused the alleged cause?

Consider that it is as Jesus and so many others have said: “God is not exclusive. Look under a rock, and see God there. Look at some humans in the distance, and see God there. Look within, and see God there.”

To pose such a question (as in “what formed the universe?”) merely evidences the ridiculousness of the verbal constructions. With language, contrasting “partners” can be isolated linguistically and then labeled as the cause and the effect.

However, to say that the sunlight causes the daytime to be warm is ultimately just poetry. The sunlight is itself just the effect of some earlier cause. The sunlight has no authority of it’s own, no will of it’s own.

The Earth seen from Apollo 17.

The Earth seen from Apollo 17. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

The sunlight is just an instrument of the universe, of God, of Life. Each form isolated within language is a facet of the Holy, which includes all of language, yet is also beyond language. Each component is an element of the system. One cannot remove a single particle from the universe. Or, if one did so, consider that then it would be an entirely different universe!

So, why is the universe how it is? “Why” is a question that the human portion of the universe can ask in words and then answer in a bunch of other words. Why do humans ask such questions and answer them how they do? Because the sun shines and the universe warms up the surfaces of planets during the daytime and some humans like to experiment with other humans in regard to socializing.

This is just a bunch of socializing. Churches and governments and universities and so on are just the universe socializing with itself as a bunch of earthlings. So is the entire internet and every library and every unit of language, written or oral.

Furthermore, the ideas (or labels) of perfection and imperfection are COMPLETELY social. They are absolutely arbitrary. A perfect butterfly is completely destroyed caterpillar. A perfect wood shingle roof is a totally ruined tree. A perfect steaming cup of coffee is a horrible liquid for watering the plants.

As for any “pro-diversity bias,” that is just another conceptual bias. Perhaps you have forgotten that the universe has allegedly killed 99% of the species of earthlings (animals and plants if not also fungi and so on) that it has so far formed in to as itself.

As for the so-called new religion of “science,” it’s “belief systems” are also presumptive and preposterous (just like those of the so-called “old” religions). However, science is ultimately just another art form, just like “religion.” They are both really just for socializing.

Dance of the Lord of Death, Paro

Dance of the Lord of Death, Paro (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

By socializing, I include things like the detonation of hydrogen bombs as well as mining of oil and uranium and salt. Socializing is not just something that humans do with each other. Socializing is what the entire universe is doing, including by forming humans.

The entirety of creation is creative creativity. It never began. It will never end. Those are just superstitious ideas formed of words (and sometimes worshiped idolatrously).

First ever "Earthrise" photograph, t...

First ever “Earthrise” photograph, taken from lunar orbit during Apollo 8 (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

God is the subatomic and the astronomic and the cellular and even the landline. Of course, all of this is purely speculative. I got it directly from God, and we all know what an imprecise translator God can be, right? We might as well dismiss all of these words as just a bunch of socializing!

As for being outside of evolution, I agree with that completely and wholeheartedly. I do realize that you did not assert anything like that, but you really should have and I see no reason to avoid agreeing with you on that point just because you never made it.

Therefore, I must also disagree with you by insisting that humor is the source of all of humanity’s worst problems, except for the horrific problem of sunlight causing the earth to warm up during the daytime, which is of course caused by the earth’s rotating around and around the axis of the earth, which we should form a campaign to remove. Without the axis of the earth, there would be no imaginary point of reference in language around which for the earth to allegedly rotate, which is the cause of all of the most severe problems in existence, as in whatever reveals the imprecision of my favorite linguistic models of how the universe is the way it is instead of some other way.

My words are the only right words. My words are the only perfect words. If my words apparently conflict with the obvious patterns of the rest of the universe, that is because the rest of the universe is just plain arrogant and disobedient. That is why we obviously must punish the earth by removing the axis. Hurry, everyone, before it is too late!

UNIQUE PICTURE: Earth as seen from the outer S...

UNIQUE PICTURE: Earth as seen from the outer Solar System (Photo credit: Icarus Kuwait)

Is there life after suffering? (Yes)

June 17, 2012
here is the video that inspired this:
here is the audio of the below, which has a few “hiccups” as well as ad libs, so read along below….
Mooji tells the story (at 10:10) of a man who reports that wherever he touches on his body, he feels sharp, crippling pain. He touches his arm and feels sharp, crippling pain. He touches his leg and feels sharp, crippling pain. He touches his nose and feels sharp, crippling pain. He touches his ear and feels sharp, crippling pain.
>
So, he panics and then goes to a doctor for help and, after a brief examination, the doctor says- “aha, I have identified the problem: your finger is broken. Anywhere you touch- even not on your body- you will feel sharp, crippling pain until that finger heals. Try using your other hand more!”
>
Now if you touch some furniture and feel sharp, crippling pain, consider that the pain may be from a broken finger, not from an injured furniture. Mooji reveals the analogy next….
>
When consciousness identifies itself as an isolated personality, then every external thing that the isolated personality interacts with may arouse suffering for the isolated personality. For one external thing, there may be yearning and longing and frustration. For another external thing, there may be repulsion and disgust and animosity and terror.
>
However, what if there is no suffering without the identifying of consciousness with an isolated personality that can be offended or can worry about earning it’s way into heaven or can try to fix the ego or fix it’s own suffering or fix all the things that the ego blames for it’s suffering or to rescue all sentient beings from evil and injustice and… life? What if suffering is not caused by external developments- not inherent to the external- but is caused solely by an internal reactive processing? What if the internal reactive procesing can be noticed as just another passing development?
>
What if the problem identified by the ego is never the source of the interepreted experience of the problem? What if the intrepretative identifying of a problem is the source of the experiencing of something as a problem? What if the isolating and identifying of an external thing is an interpretative, linguistic process?
>
Can there be a problem found in a malfunctioning car without someone there to identify not just the external conditions as problematic, but even to identify the car itself? If there is pile of metal, it is not a malfunctioning pile of metal, but just a pile of metal. However, if the pile of metal is a car that is not functioning well as a car, then that pile of metal is also a malfunctioning car. Finally, for someone to have a problem with the fact that the car is malfunctioning, there has to be someone to have that problem, to interpret and isolate the problem into existence, to create the problem, the malfunctioning car, and the pile of metal.
>
Attention itself does not have any problems. Consciousness prior to identification does not have any problems. Only isolated identifyings of “this but not that” can experience problems. Problems must be identified as problems or else they might just be a pile of scrap metal. Maybe that pile of scrap metal is even a resource of several useful parts to repair some other malfunctioning car.
>
There is no problem in the pile of metal. There can be a problem with the pile of metal, though. For there to be a problem with a pile of metal, there has to be someone there to make that pile of metal into a problem. For there to be a problem with a pile of metal, there must be someone with that particular pile of metal.
>
The pile of metal is independent of the problem and totally innocent. However, along comes the broken finger of the ego which touches the pile of metal and says “oh, this pile of metal should be what it is not!” The ego makes the pile of metal into a problem. In fact, without anyone to identify the pile of metal as a pile of metal, no one could have a problem with it by making it into a problem.
>
A classic zen koan is this: “If a tree falls in the forest, but there is no one there to see it falling, did it fall?” So, if a piece of furniture causes crippling pain whenever it is touched, but there is no broken finger to touch it, is it still a crippling piece of painful furniture? If the pile of scrap metal is the source of a serious problem, but there is no one there to have that problem with it or even to make it into a problem, is it still the source of a serious problem, needing to be fixed, blocking the ego from earning it’s way into a painfully distant heaven set up by a cruel, stingy god as a punishing torture of shaming for not being how you really should have already always been?
>
Obviously, anyone who can fix a car can fix a car. But is the car a problem? Does it need to be fixed? Does the car need anything? Should it already be functional, or should everything be exactly however it is, including however it may or may not change? Should the ego be different- maybe more like a needy car or painful furniture and less like a broken finger?
>
An ego may need the car to be fixed. An ego may need the car to be different than it is. An ego may have lots of needs… and lots of shoulds and musts and can’ts and won’ts and nevers.
>
However, and here is the really good news, you are not an ego. You are consciousness. You as consciousness have an ego. In fact, you as consciousness have all of them- consciousness has all egos (assuming that there is really more than one, given that they all seem to be rather similar, which reminds me of a story I once heard about a broken finger…).
>
So, the ego may have lots of problems. It may even need to have a lot of problems. Maybe it should try to solve them and fix them and prevent them. Maybe it must do that. However, and this might be a bit of a problem, maybe it can’t do what it must and should. Or, maybe it is stubborn and just won’t, even though of course it really should and absolutely must.
>
To get rid of all of the ego’s problems, recognize that the ego’s problems are your mentors as well as your creations. You created the ego and it’s problems to mentor yourself, didn’t I?
>
This is called crazy wisdom. This is called sheer foolishness.
>
This is also called introspection. This is even called Advaita or the yoga of inquiry, as in dhyana/jnana or ch’an or zen. This is even called “life after suffering.”
>
The ego does not limit you and never could. You are the vine which has a branch called ego. You made that branch out of yourself. That entire branch is totally composed of vine.
>
But that branch does have some serious problems. Plus, it is your branch, though it is not the whole vine. Maybe that branch has a problem with every other part of the vine, but that is not your problem either. The vine just grows branches, including one or more painful, crippling branches with serious problems involving taking life personally. However, there could be such a thing as “life after taking things personally.” There could be life after suffering.
>
Or maybe there is life and suffering. But life and suffering may be a radically different interpretative experience than a life of suffering, a life as suffering, a life of problems, a life as a problem or a problem with life itself.
>
I hereby request that I stop having a problem with life and instead have, at worst, a life that is entirely composed of serious, crippling, painful problems. For instance, consider this serious, crippling, and painful problem, which requires you to devote the rest of your life to almost solving, but not quite…: “if a broken finger feels tremendous pain whenever it pushes up against an ego that is taking life personally, but you are not the ego taking life personally that the alleged broken finger would allegedly push up against, are you absolutely sure that it isn’t a broken finger or not?”
>
In conclusion, I hereby accuse you of being totally innocent… of the alleged crime of either taking life personally or failing miserably to do so. Maybe you should seriously try harder to become what you already have always been.
 Published on: Jan 25, 2011
Related articles

critique of 3 LAWS OF PERFORMANCE book

March 29, 2012

Hi David and Steve (the authors of “the Three Laws of Performance”),

4 U.S. Presidents. Former President Jimmy Cart...

4 U.S. Presidents. Former President Jimmy Carter (right), walks with, from left, George H.W. Bush (far left), George W. Bush (second from left) and Bill Clinton (center) during the dedication of the William J. Clinton Presidential Center and Park in Little Rock, Arkansas, November 18, 2004 (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

I found something interesting enough in the Three Laws of Performance book (on pages 120 & 121 in particular) that I am emailing you two. The basics are that your “distinguishing” of corporations from other organizations is… very incomplete, plus the explanation of the notable financial developments globally in 2008 is… something I intend to correct.

I am going to take some time to create this, expecting that you care at least as much as I do about the content below. First, thank for writing the book and everything involved in forwarding the conversation as you have.

Briefly introducing myself, I graduated from a Landmark Forum in late 2007. Prior to that, I was exploring the same issues you reference in your book. By the way, since you write in a context of global concern, I note that I also live in the U.S.

In early 2003, I published forecasts of the so-called “surprises” of 2008. In 2003, I focused exclusively on financial trends (primarily, the causal activities of lending, borrowing, buying, and selling, etc and the secondarily the resulting price changes). In 2004, I went beyond the basic data of the various causal trends of investing activities (and the resulting financial measurements of those activities called changes in “pricing”) and then focused on a core economic issue which I asserted as the “root cause” of the changes in patterns of human action (and thus patterns of price change).

That publication was “The Real U.S. Deficit: OIL.” The term “real” was used in contrast to the word “nominal” as in the phrase “nominal dollars.” “Nominal” dollar pricing ignores long-term changes in the purchasing power of the dollar currency. All dollar figures are actually measuring something else, such as the dollar cost of importing 14 million barrels of oil per day in 2011. We can measure the cost of 14 million barrels in “current dollars” or in “1985 dollars” (which were “more valuable”).

A single barrel of crude oil is a real, tangible, physical amount. It does not change from year to year. The purchasing power of a currency can change quite a bit in a decade or a century, while a 55-gallon barrel is still the same amount (and a gallon is still the same amount).

So, since 1970 when the US started using more oil than it produced, the trade deficit of importing more and more oil has gone up and up and up (as oil production levels in the US have also declined almost every year since then). By 2008, importing all that oil was getting so costly that some people and companies in the US began something quite radical: reducing consumption. Naturally, prices stopped rising and fell.

Borrowing from the phrase “the domino effect,” I titled a section of that 2004 publication “The DominOIL effect.” I asserted a simple, clear connection between (1) geological facts (how much oil was available) and (2) technological facts (how much oil had been located as accessible) and (3) behavioral facts (human trends in extraction, consumption, invasion, etc)  and (4) financial measures of price, and so on.
Here is a central focus of that article: “how many [US] dollars will it cost to buy a gallon of gasoline next year?” By the way, gasoline prices rose dramatically the next year, 2005.

In 1999, the pricing of oil (and gasoline) reversed a long-term downtrend of cheaper and cheaper fossil fuels overall. Again, that price trend ended in 1999, as predicted with varying degrees of precision by at least a few geologists and economic forecasters, perhaps most famously by US President Jimmy Carter in the late 1970s on a live TV broadcast (but also by Richard Nixon before him, and, most notably, a “heretical” USGS Geologist named M. King Hubbard in the 1950s).

So, by 2004, it was obvious that a long-term trend of rising prices of oil (and gasoline) would alter many behavioral patterns. First, as oil prices doubled from 1999 to 2000, the stock prices of the US airline sector index dropped 40%- starting almost an entire year prior to the collapse of the global tech bubble in 2000.


What happened? The predictable rise in fuel prices (which surprised most people) led to a predictable increase the expenses of airlines (which surprised most people). Further, as gasoline prices rose, many budgets tightened (of private households, businesses, and governments). With less cash available (after “predictably surprising” rises in fuel costs), there was less money to lend (like for real estate speculation) and less money to invest (like in stocks or in new business ventures or in cash purchases of real estate). With less money being borrowed and invested in to real estate and stocks, what was “surprisingly predictable?”

The US housing stock sector peaked in 2005 and has fallen 80% since then (shown above). Real Estate prices began to fall in regions that previously led the boom, such as Las Vegas and Phoenix (the area where I now live). By the way, similar developments in Europe recently have basically followed the similar pattern of Japan since 1989 (and, to a lesser extent, to the dissolving of the Soviet Union around the same time).

By 2007, US (and European) companies that were heavily exposed to real estate speculation began to adjust their balance sheets for more realistic reporting of current asset value/collateral value. That includes the financial insitutions that financed real estate speculation (like Fannie Mae, Countrywide, Bear StearnsMerrill Lynch and GMAC) as well as the many insurance companies that had contracted to immense liabilities beyond their cash capacity to perform, such as AIG, in “mortgage insurance” promises to protect the financial interests of the lender in the case of a default on a mortgage.

In other words, in 2007, the financial sector of the US stock market began to crash, falling over 80% in about 18 months. As I forecast in 2004, it was the spiking of oil prices that “popped the financial bubble” and by 2008, triggered (I assert) an accelerated decline in stock prices, but also a sudden 70% decline in oil prices in only a little over half of a year.

Generally, I call all of that “the DominOIL effect.” I detailed it generally in 2004 and continued to elaborate ever since then.

Now, let’s look at your sentence (from The 3 Laws of Performance) referencing the global shift in 2008: “The world became aware of the negative effects of externalization in the financial crisis of 2008, when bad debt created by corporations required government intervention to avoid economic collapse.” I’m now going to question and challenge basically all of the assumptions (“blindspots” ?) of that sentence. Again, I applaud you for raising the issue and for interpreting how you did- perhaps a perfect fit for the context in which it occcured for you.

Let’s start at the end. What is an economic collapse?

An example would be when farmers rely on a well for water, but then the water runs dry, the soil turns to dust, there is no harvest, and people starve to death. Those are all economic issues.

Another example of an economic collapse would be what happened to certain mining towns in Arizona now called “ghost towns” or to certain oil-producing regions of Texas that in the 1920 were booming, but then ran out of oil and became ghost towns as well. Economic collapses can be much larger though.

So, was an economic collapse avoided by government interventions in and after 2008? I say “no” and I will say more below.

First, in Japan in the 1990s, lots of government interventions were implemented, but Japan’s stock market is still down over 75% from it’s 1989 high. In the US in 2008, yes the government stepped in to rescue banking institutions and the US auto industry and shift the burden and risk away from shareholders to taxpayers. However, that redistribution of risk did not especially reduce risk.

If there was a rescue in 2008, it was not by a government agency, but by the Federal Reserve (a private corporation), which rescued AIG with a loan of $85 billion (as I recall), allowing for the US financial system to continue at least temporarily in much the same way as it had been previously- no major redistribution/re-organization/collapse. The Fed gambled on AIG and the long-term success of their gamble is still questionable, but let’s say it worked pretty well so far.

Note that I am generally skeptical of government interventions, and not just attempted socialist bail-outs like that of the failed USSR (or in Japan for the last 21 years). For instance, for many decades, government interventions to immediately put out wildfires in the US state of Arizona have produced a distinct condition: a forest with huge accumulations of fuel (dry twigs and other vegetable debris) as well as a very dense network of trunks all sucking water from about the same amount of annual rainfall, which means they are very dry and unhealthy and so most are infested with weevils, which the government agents might then intervene to kill.

So, decades of government interventions produce an “unmanageable” concentration of fuel, then a “normal” lightning fire can easily get “out of control.” I was a refugee of a 2002 wildfire that burned about 500,000 acres of northeast Arizona. (That experience is what indirectly led me to research trends and forecasting.) This very minute, an even larger wildfire is plaguing northeast Arizona. What can be learned from the “surprising” wildfire developments in 2002 and 2011 (which I assert were easily predicted by any competent forestry scientist)?

For decades previously, Forestry Science professors studied and predicted the wildfire danger in the Ponderosa Pine mountaintops of Arizona (and other similar regions) and, generally, were ignored (but still publicly funded). Similarly, geologists and some forecasters studied and predicted the “dominoil effect,” but were generally ridiculed and resisted, beginning with M. King Hubbard.

So, do government interventions avert economic collapses? Perhaps sometimes. Do government interventions ever produce predictable disasters- such as 2,000 degree forest fires- that were impossible without those government interventions? Perhaps sometimes!

Next, in 2008, was an economic collapse avoided and “transformed”- or just delayed/”changed”? The fundamental shift of power continues. The shift is away from the previously influential regions of Europe to, by the 20th century, the two regions that produced the most oil in the world (the US and USSR) and further to the regions now producing the most oil (the Oil Producing and Exporting Countries of O.P.E.C.).

I expect the EU to dissolve and collapse relatively soon, and the economies not just of Greece and Italy and Ireland, but basically all of Europe. I expect the US to follow in a huge long-term economic contraction, but distantly, rather like Japan has been. I expect the primary OPEC countries, including Saudi Arabia, which is now the #1 producer of oil in the world, to expand in geo-political prominence and economic affluence just as did the USSR and US when those two countries were the #1 (and #2) producers of oil.

Now, that doesn’t mean that your book and work should reflect the “probable almost certain future” as I see it. But it could reflect what I see, and that might make it much more relevant ten years and one hundred years from now.

By the way, I understand your reference to “externalization,” but I do not think it is especially relevant to what happened in 2008. Also, if it was just a matter of bad debt, then the debt could be discharged, then bankruptcy courts could sort out what to do with the relevant assets, and the overall economy would be largely unchanged- like in terms of barrels of oil consumed. Bad debt is just a financial and contractual and legal issue. Dry wells (whether of water or oil) is a major economic issue.

Externalization did not change the mining towns of Arizona in to ghost towns. Emptying of the mines naturally brought about the formation and growth of the towns, (bringing business activity to the area), and then once the mines were empty, the towns were abandoned. “Externalization” seems to me to be your pet demon, your convenient “make-wrong,” even a justification for government interventions to “protect” us from the morally evil corporate externalizations.

But interventionist government protections do not make an empty mine full again. In fact, interventionist governments sometimes produce uniquely unsustainable conditions, which PREDICTABLY resolve as huge wildfires.

Now, let’s turn to a point of potential trivia- because it is also potentially a clarification that will renew possibility. Let’s review the distinction between organizations in general and corporations in particular.

Let’ts review a few rather old organizations, such as Harvard University, the Dutch East India Company, The Roman Catholic Church, the Knights Templar, the Free Masons, and an organization generally known as China. India and Egypt are pretty old, too, right?

Do they all have the “right” to employ people? Yes. Legal rights, by the way, arise from the declaration in to being of governing operations called court systems. Court systems create stuff in language (or govern what others create in conversation) known as “legal rights.”

Do all of those organizations “own property?” Sure! Do they all engage in negotiations and contracts and lawsuits (and even wars)? Sure!

So, you did not really distinguish corporations at all, did you? Corporations exist explicitly to promote the interest of the interested parties (shareholders, creditors, employees, etc) and do so implicitly relative to the interest of “everyone else.” In other words, corporations are instruments of competition (as in conquest). Many of them can be traded. They do not discriminate based on language or sex or nationality or religious affiliation (except when they do).

Also, the legal definition of “person” just means a legally relevant identifying in language. The word person (and persona and personality) derive from the ancient Greek roots per-son, which is the same base root as sonar and sound. The word derives from the masks worn by actors in ancient Greek theatre, with different masks having different sound holes so that the sound or voice or vibe of the character was distinct, since in Greek theatre, a few actors would play multiple roles in a play.

There is nothing inconsistent with the legal definition of person and the ancient Greek roots of the word. In fact, consider that there is no such thing as inconsistency per se, just varying degrees of connectivity or consistency or causal significance.

Next, I note that I “do not like” the phrase “without integrity, nothing works.” When we say integrity as in “honoring word,” that is not about physical integrity but language, right?

I prefer this: responsibility about language gives access to powerful communication. (liken that to “communication: access to power” which I have taken). Further, powerful communication CAN create breakthroughs in performance. (liken that to: “communication: power to create” which I have not taken, but I think I assisted for it at least once a few years ago.)

Anyway, having studied organizations that prohibit and punish “transparent integrity” of certain kinds, such as the KGB or the US Army or the Free Masons, I respectfully question the phrasing “nothing works.” Nothing? Really!?!?   ;-)

So, let me recontextualize “the problem” at least in terms of finances and language and law. Masses of private investors own shares of corporations without any sense of accountability for the activities and performance of those corporations. Such ownership “lacks integrity” and markets might redistribute such ownership. Simple, huh?

Like when a real estate “flipper” owns 50% of the equity, but then suddenly the creditor owns 100% of the equity, that is just a redistribution of ownership. Or when Fidel, Che and the other armed revolutionaries of organized violence come in and say “our gang just overthrew your gang and now we control this whole island,” that is also a redistribution of “ownership” by the “declaring” of a new governing court system of organized violence (given that all governing courts are systems of organized violence).

As for “the problem” of the probable and almost certain “end of the fossil fuel age,” it’s not really a problem unless we relate to it as such. Yes, human civilization may radically alter… again. So what?

Do the US and EU have a problem in terms of maintaining their current “market share?” Yes. According to the US Government, the US currently has about 4.5% of the world’s population and uses almost 25% of the oil. Both of those figures may change radically, probably starting with the latter.

Change is not a problem. Change is a fact.

Alaska is a booming state, producing lots of oil. The province of Alberta Canada is also booming, and, by the way, producing (extracting) lots of oil. Mexican stock markets are surging, with Mexico producing and exporting lots of oil.

(Chart of Mexico stock index prices:)

Mexican stock markets are charted in green above, next to the US in red and Japan in blue.

However, once the oil wells dry up, economic collapse may follow. At some point, personal adaptiveness leads to adaptiveness of groups (and organizations). When that point arises for any particular person (human organism or legal corporation) may have something to do with the “relatedness” of that person’s conversations- the extent of the relatedness to what is relevant, which is more specific than “what is so.”

So, the subject line of this email says “proposal.” My proposal, first, is that I assert that I am correcting herein the lack of distinction re corporations and re the global shift underway.

Corporations, unlike governments, do not explicitly rely on organized coercion and also generally allow participation by publicly-traded shares, which may mean involvement is much more open than in most governments (or churches). However, that does not make corporations better (or worse)- just distinct.

As for the real issues of global economics- not just nominal financial issues and national political spins- the real issues are exceedingly simple, but perhaps quite unpopular in places like the US and the EU. Virtually no one wanted to hear Hubbard or Carter (or even Richard Heinberg, Michael Ruppert or me), at least not until they did.

But certain leaders in OPEC have long been very clear that in 2008, current members of OPEC would produce more oil than all the rest of the world combined, including the Former Soviet Union and US and Mexico and Canada. From here on, the percentage of oil produced by OPEC countries is expected to grow year by year and decade by decade, as more and more wells in the Russia and North America run dry.

Did, as you assert, something fundamental change about “corporate externalization” in 2008? Or did global power simply shift… again.

I propose that you did not already know what I have now presented to you clearly. I propose that you are not attempting to cover up and distract from the simple economic shift underway. You just will not relate to it powerfully… until you are.

I invite replies to this email. Again, thank you for your interest and your intelligence and your commitment.

Related articles
critique of 3 LAWS OF PERFORMANCE
First Published on: Jun 25, 2011

“that map is wrong and this plan is holy”

March 27, 2012

Here is a parable, then a commentary.

Now, a child was holding in her hand a map. She looked closely at the map and moved her finger across it.

The map showed some paths that went through a big forest park. The paths on the map sometimes crossed.

The child hit the map against her hand and then, in a big forest park in the middle of a path, she threw the map down on the
ground. As she stood, she began to cry.

Soon, a blind man and his dog found her right here. He asked her if she was hurt. She stopped crying and said no.

Then, he asked her if she liked dogs. She said yes and came closer to pet his dog.

Before she got to the dog, the blind man told her to wait. The man also said that there is a certain way of doing things that works.

Then, he said something to the dog quickly and then he told the child to make a fist and to hold it still in front of her for the dog to smell. She did. The dog walked near to her, smelled briefly, then licked her wrist.

The man said that the dog was ready for her to pet now. So, she pet the dog for a while. Then she looked at the man and said that her map “must be wrong.”

He slowly repeated what she said and then asked if she was sure that it is really a map? She said yes.

Then, he asked how she was sure that the map was wrong. She told him that she could not be lost, so her map must be wrong.

Next, he asked if she was sure that this map was a map of this park? She said yes and offered to show it to him.

Then, he asked her to first tell him where she was going. She did.

Next, he asked her to show that place to him on the map. She did.

Then, he asked her to show him their current position on the map. She did.

He said, “Aha, can you see the problem here?” She said, “yes, like I already told you: that map is wrong!”

Then, he turned his head to the left and turned it to the right as he said to her “when you look around here, do you see anything in this part of the forest that looks like that place on the map?” She said “no, and that’s the problem.”

He said “Well, I don’t see a match between this part of the forest and that place on the map. So, are you absolutely sure that this map is a map of this forest?”

She rolled her eyes and then nodded her head. He turned the map upside down and said “Okay then, how about this: are you absolutely sure that this place on the map is where we are in this forest?”

“I already told you that I am not lost,” she said. “Oh, clearly, I can see that,” he said, then asked, “I wonder: have you heard about a blind man that often walks through this park?”

She said “oh, yes. I heard that the park is named after him, right?”

“Yes, that’s exactly the man I mean,” he said. “Anyway, once he was walking through this park when he suddenly realized that he had been lost since before he knew that he was lost! Can you imagine that?”

She said “Well, that does not make any sense! Why didn’t he just use a map?”

“That is really a great question,” he said. “If you ever find the answer, be sure to let me know. Anyway, didn’t you say that you were going back to the entrance of the park?”

“That’s right,” she said. Then, she reached out her hand, fingers outstretched this time, for the dog to lick.

“Well, fortunately for me, that is also where I am going, so we could go together,” he said. “Fortunately for you, I already know how to get there from here. Follow me.”

Then, the blind man with his dog and the child all walked directly to the entrance of the park. She told him all about the right way to make maps and he always found a way to find every moment fascinating right now.

Illustration of interference of light coming f...

Illustration of interference of light coming from two in-phase point sources. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Summary:

If a map stops working for you, stop using it. Do not rely on a map. Always rely on the ground, even if you use a map. Sometimes maps are no longer accurate. By the way, an accurate map is most effective when you know the place on the map that corresponds to your actual position.

Commentary (which goes beyond the lesson of the parable):

You are made through a plan. As this plan is followed, you develop and prosper. If this plan were ever neglected, your development would have slowed or stopped and then you may have even experienced a loss of curiosity and clarity as well as a cycle of resistance and confusion.

Resistance is the natural result whenever anything else interferes with this plan. Resistance blocks the interference. Remember, when interacting with others, that this plan is for you personally to discover and follow, not for others to learn from you or for you to learn from them. Reject those who interfere with this plan. If others resist you, stop interfering.

If you ever resist this plan, this plan interferes with the resisting. Confusion is the natural result whenever you interfere with this plan. If you have been confused, you can stop moving forward and then return to clarity now.

How does one return to clarity? Study this plan which makes you. Every instinct is part of this plan. Every intuition is part of this plan.

Any plan that is written or spoken is not this plan. Those are only words or symbols. Words can remind you of this plan, but this plan is not made from words.

This plan makes all the creatures, each according to the specific plan for that creature. According to this plan, some creatures make symbols and words, which are like the features of a map. The map is made according to the ground, but making a map does not influence the ground. This plan is like the ground.

Words and symbols may or may not accurately describe certain features of the ground or this plan. However, do not rely on the words and symbols. Rely on this plan. This plan guides you. This holy plan is how your life works.

This holy plan guides all of my life. This holy plan guides how to breathe, how to eat, how to see, how to move, how to crawl, walk, or run, and how to think, plus how to do everything else from interacting with other people directly to how to adjust to the weather to how to prosper in all seasons of economic flow.

When I study this holy plan and practice what this holy plan guides me to practice, I develop according to this holy plan. Only I can fulfill this holy plan and I am.

 

 

Published on: Apr 11, 2009


JR
************

“Life is not what it’s supposed to be. Its what it is. The way you cope with it is what makes the difference.” Virginia Satir(1916-1988)

Virgina Satir
Image via Wikipedia-                    Virginia Satyr
Related articles

Being the great change (and the language of grace)

March 23, 2012

Being the great change:

The Great Comet of 2011
The Great Comet of 2011 (Photo credit: lrargerich)

Could you ever be how you should not be?

Many place themselves outside of their world, outside of their life, and in opposition to their life and their world. That way of identifying is conflict and suffering.

Here is how it happens. We learn words. That is when things get confusing.

The confusion or problem is not in life, but in the words. There is no such thing as a problem until someone says so.

A problem is something that (allegedly) should not be how it is. Problems are created by the concept that something should be other than it is.

Confusion

Confusion (Photo credit: Kaleenxian)

As long as something should be how it is not, that is a problem- not the thing itself, but the perception that it should be how it isn’t. It is how it is. That isn’t a problem in itself, but we can make “it is how it is” into a cause for confusion, conflict, and suffering, simply with the use of words.

“Here is how it should be” is declared by words for a reason. The reason to declare “here is how it should be” is to hide how it is.

When one is operating from the concept of “here is how it should be,” then anything that is not how it should be is how it should not be. The concept of “how it should be” creates the possibility of “how it should not be.”

We may try to ignore how it should not be. We may violently oppose how it should not be. However, as long as there is a way how it should be, how it is may not fit how it should be, and clearly that is how it should not be.

How it should be is the source of how it should not be, such as “that traffic light should be green, not red. The one facing me should be green, not that one facing the other direction. Wait, I cannot tell which traffic signal is facing me. I should be able to tell. I should not be unable to tell. I should not be confused. This is wrong. Something must be wrong. It cannot be me. It must be someone else. Wow, this really should not be so confusing!”

Confusing signal

Confusing signal (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

So, those who worship “how it should be” live in opposition to or even denial of how it simply is, then fear that “how it simply is” may be recognized as “other than how it should be, ” then, upon recognition that how it is may not be how it should be, anger arises. How it should be is how it should be! How it should not be is how it should not be!

Various versions of “how it should (not) be” manifest across the various times and places and language patterns. The frightened anger over the gap between how it is and how it should be is what leads to worry and war. Agruments start over which way it should be and how to fix it.

Frustration and exhaustion and blame all are branches of the concept of how it should be. The question may arise as to “who is to blame for the gap between how it should be and how it obviously is?” The urgent question may arise as to “how can we fix how it is and make how it is conform with the whatever particular version of how it should be?” The desperate question may arise of “how can we save our children from the gap between how it should be (which is allegedly very important) and how it is (which is allegedly only important secondarily)?”

Now, how is it that “how it should be” is used to hide how it is? By promoting “how it should be,” that automatically creates “how it should not be.” When “how it should not be” is worshiped as more important than how it is, how it is must be rejected as confusing. How it is must be experienced as a problem, as the cause of suffering. How it is must be fixed.

However, what if “how it is” is never the cause of suffering? What if suffering is just one way of relating to “how it is,” particularly relating to how it is as less important than a linguistic belief (idolatry) that we label “how it should be?” If it were not for the arrogant, vain worship of “how it should be,” then “how it is” would never have been labeled “how it should not be” as in “the problem” as in “the cause of suffering.” In other words, idolatrous morality (AKA shame) is the cause of suffering.

To the one worshiping the existence of sin and shame and so on, what must be fixed is one’s own self. When one identifies any aspect of one’s own self as how one should not be, that self-rejecting projects a “psychological shadow” at the world (at life).

Since one obviously must not be how one should not be, the world out there must be the domain of how it should not be. Clearly, over here is the domain of how it should be: just ask me! Over there, though, that is the domain of how it should not be: again, just ask ANYONE!

Words have a power all their own

Words have a power all their own (Photo credit: waɪ.tiː)

Then along comes some sages who say RIDICULOUS things like this: “I did not come to judge the world. I came to take away sin…. Do not remove the speck from the other’s perception, but the beam from your own.” Obviously, these folks are asking for trouble!

On the other hand, these folks seem not to be at all troubled- not by their world or anyone in it or their own past or present or future. How come they are not troubled like everyone else? Confusing, wasn’t it?

Be the great change. Do not make great changes to fix the world into how it should be. Simply notice the changing of the world, your world, your life, your self.

Reclaim what you used to call “over there” as you, even the language of “how it should be” which may be used to hide how it is. If you play a little hide and seek with yourself, so be it. If you pretend to be confused, so be it. If you pretend to be something other than the Great Change itself, so be it. If you pretend that there is a gap between how it should be and how it is, that is one way that you could be about how your life may be. A very serious problem, wasn’t it?

Published on: Dec 24, 2009

Related articles

A life without problems & the language of relating to life as a problem

February 29, 2012
Published on Aug 14, 2009. Re-published as a page on February 28, 2012.
Experience

Experience (Photo credit: djniks)

I have been having very serious problems with reality. Isn’t that awesome?
A problem is a belief that God (i.e. you, I) has failed definitively and is incapable of miraculously resolving some allegedly unresolved and perhaps unresolvable situation. At root, a problem is a way of relating with reality that identifies some situation as wrong ( as a problem, as what should not be). Along with that often goes this: relating to some other situation as the cause of the problem- an excuse for one’s own results, experiences, actions or inactions. Making a problem out of life  basically identifies the one with the problem as the victim isolated from an all-powerful, evil, villainous reality (AKA “the victim mentality“). At least, that is one way of making a problem out of life. There are other ways that are not so dramatic, but making life in to a problem in this particular way is, frankly, quite an interesting way to draw attention to one’s self.
The big problem was a reflection (or projection) of my belief in what is wrong with my life (i.e. with me) and of my worshipping of my own insistence that something is wrong. The experience of “problem” is the resulting evidence- which I present as obvious, incontrovertible proof that reality should not be how it is and then I make friends with anyone who agrees with me and deem everyone else as obviously “part of the problem.” The problem thus justifies my worship of the belief that something is wrong with my life (i.e. with me): “see, here is the proof: just look at this problem!”
By the way, problems are always presumed to be more important than the rest of reality. Did I mention that people who agree with me on how important my problems are (on how important I am through them) may be who I identify as my friends (oh, and did I also mention how insightful they are)? People who erroneously think that other things are “the problem” are wrong… obviously. ;)
So, in cooperation with our alleged enemies, we may come together like magnets, each arguing for how we are repulsed by each other. We join together, facing each other with angry tears and surging adrenalin- and chant this mantra in harmony like the sopranos and tenors of a choir: “you are so wrong. You are so wrong. You are so wrong. How can you be so wrong? I can’t believe that you could actually be so wrong. How much wronger could anyone be? You may be the wrongest person to ever live! God really must be ashamed of creating someone as wrong as you.”
However, at least we can still agree with them that any people who question the existence of problems must be insane. Here’s proof: none of any of our friends (none of the friends of my enemies and none of my own friends- you remember- the insightful ones) question the existence of problems, do they?
Religion overthrowing Heresy and Hatred II

Religion overthrowing Heresy and Hatred II (Photo credit: Nick in exsilio)

At root, problems are hatred. “You are so wrong” (or even “this is so wrong”) is a mantra of hatred, and when I say “you are so wrong,” who hears it most? Who hears me say “you?” Which “you” hears it every single time I say (or even think) it?

Religion overthrowing Heresy and Hatred I

Religion overthrowing Heresy and Hatred I (Photo credit: Nick in exsilio)

I hear it everytime I say it. I hear it every time one of my friends say it. When the people that I call my enemies say it, I probably don’t bother listening to them really because they are obviously wrong anyway. So, if my distant enemies have only been listening to me as little as I have been listening to them (if at all), then to whom are they really saying their mantras (whether in Russian or Arabic or Hebrew or English): to themselves (and perhaps also to their friends- and even their children- who will listen to my latest hypnotic mantras of hatred)?
“But stop trying to change the subject, buddy. Let’s get back to the specifics of my very special and important problem. You know the one. Don’t act like I need to tell you what the real problem is here…. You KNOW the one!”
So, if I have been attached to a certain specific method or specific outcome which does not fit present reality, could the source of the problem be not reality but my insistence on a method or outcome which may not fit with reality? Insisting that reality adhere to my presumptions is rebellion against reality. That could be a problem, huh?
Insisting that my life (I) should not be how it is (how I am) is not partnering with reality. Rebelling against reality first isolates me from reality (implicitly denying that I am real) and then implies that reality is the source of my rebellion- you know- because something obviously is fundamentally wrong with reality, you know- the distant reality way over there, so far away from me, the innocent victim, who is so unlike all-powerful reality. On the other hand, I may have been attributing a lot of power to reality. What if at least some of the power that any alleged reality may have is actually power that came from me and my attention? That would have been ironic, wasn’t it?
English: The mantra of Padmasambhava (Guru Rin...

Image via Wikipedia

The experience of problem was my insisting that something is fundamentally wrong with reality. The experience of problem was the insistence that reality is fundamentally wrong. By the way, people who did not agree with me not just on exactly how reality is wrong but even on the basic premise that reality is wrong… are people that I deemed to be insane. Again: ironic, wasn’t it?
“By the way, do you know what your problem is? You do, huh? Well, in that case, let me tell you what your problem is….”
Consider that in order to partner with reality, first we might question what reality actually is. We might even question how reality comes to be and even the seemingly absurd question of whether reality even exists.
Who would I be if I questioned the existence of reality? That would imply that I stop separating myself from any particular something. Hating is rooted in the belief that I am not the object of the hatred. Fearing, hoping, and even loving may be rooted in the belief that I am not the object of the experience. Or, perhaps loving is the direct experiencing of life as living- without separating life into you and me, good and eve, villain and victim, subject and object, cause and effect, alive and dead, into two.
What if what I have been calling reality was only a specific, limited way of experiencing living? What if I relax my objectifying of reality as “the way it is” and experience living curiously as “what could be?”
Reality is just something that could be. Insist, then suffering may result.
Insist on how reality should be, and am I not the one who suffers? Insist on how I should be, and am I the one who suffers- or, by focusing on my own way of being, isn’t my experience of life by which I mean my experience of my life by which I mean my experience of me living my life… responding precisely to my evolving attention? What if that has always been all that has ever been?
Does reality mechanically produce an experience which I then call me? Does life live me living my life? Is my life the dead product of a remote God-reality- an impersonal, all-powerful and yet possibly judgmental, insecure, jealous, and vengeful God-reality- or am I this very God-realizing attention which gives form to experience?
On the seventh day, God said to herself: “Hey, do you know what your problem is? You are so wrong! By the way, stop trying to change the object!”
And so God, who had been having a very bad hair day, removed her comb from the surface of the obviously uncooperative mirror- where she had been trying so earnestly to get the mother-flipping reflection to part right there- no, not here (AAAARRRGH). Instead, she then, perhaps by a divinely accidental coincidence of synchronicitous grace, casually placed the comb on her head all the way over here and indeed relaxed her hand, sliding this comb gently through her hair just like that. Suddenly, just as she felt the comb gently moving across her scalp, something truly miraculous happened….
God just woke up from the dream that there was ever a mirror out there at all. A mirror that did not ever exist could not have always been a problem, shouldn’t you?



JR
************

We do not have to sail in the direction of the wind, but if we ever sail off course, is it easier to change the direction of the wind or the direction of the sail?

Related articles

the shepherd (a new KWML “King” archetype)

January 29, 2012

Shepherd

I recommend that you open this in a separate window so you can see the links the second part:

 

1) The explorer: they innocently and eagerly discover the world. They like to play around with things and experiment, then to demonstrate or share patterns that they find.

GSD with baby

Image via Wikipedia

Eventually, they also discover that some people do not want certain details of human life to be discovered or explored or publicized, so the explorer inevitably learns to keep secret certain subjects (or simply avoid those subjects). That distinction is the origin of the psychological shadow.

Shepherd,

Image by gilus_pl via Flickr

2) The judge: they divide the world in to a simple polarity: good vs evil, right vs wrong, what should be and what should not be. This is the classic metaphor of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. There are two main branches or limbs that extend from the single trunk: what is accepted as working and what is rejected. Of course, the judge actually does not label the vast majority of reality as good or evil, but the function of the judge is identify priority topics and sort those topics in (a) things to cultivate and (b) things to avoid or suppress. The judge is like a censor or an editor or even a coach. Again, there are things that it works best to keep private and things that it works well to publicize.

A maturing judge realizes that the labels of right and wrong are not absolute, but are contextual or relative. For instance, behavior that is wrong in a quiet library may be the right behavior in a park or playground. However, some judges remain in fanatical dogmatic paranoia and anxiety, at least for a while.

3) The saint

Saints identify one or more patterns of life as problems and then go about saving the world from that pattern. Different saints identify different patterns as problems and thus saints tend to eventually encounter other fanatical saints to argue or struggle against or at least to compete against for attention (or for research funding, etc). Their crusades often involve reactively fighting against other crusaders (over any issue except territory or military dominance- as in fighting over principle or morality). They kill out of judgment and contempt, unlike a hunter or a herder or a general.

Many saints do not know that their labeling of any particular pattern as a problem is arbitrary. In other words, many immature judges advance on to developing as saints and thus end up in the mode of earning their way in to a distant heaven to compensate for a deep shame or guilt about their own secret judgment that they should not be how they are, should not have done what they have done, should accomplish some great glory to provide restitution and so on.

If you ask most of these saints, they may insist that they are not in heaven. They may say that must save the world in order to earn their way in to heaven. That is their purpose or their destiny or their mission. Their guilt or shame or secret shadow is a core part of their identity, as is their mission to compensate for the guilt or shame.

A maturing saint recognizes that fixing or changing the world is not the path to a distant heaven, but to exhaustion and depression. Advocating a particular pattern of human behavior or human social order may be quite useful and relevant and even a priority, but arguing is not promoting anything except the behavior of arguing. A mature or holy saint is not offended by someone who does not support their advocacy or who even disagrees or opposes their movement or crusade or imperialist war.

4) The shepherd: this is the symbol of a flock of sheep led by a herder who tends over the flock as their master or bishop (which is a word derived from the roots for “watching over,” same as “episcopal”). The shepherd is also a classic Christian metaphor for a religious leader or even for a church institution itself (as in “the Good Shepherd Church”).

There are dangers to the sheep, such as wolves. The shepherd partners with the flock, promoting the shepherd’s own interests and the interests of the flock, so far as those interests are in accord with those of the shepherd. A shepherd may also train some sheep dogs (such as the German Shepherd dog) to assist in the herding of the flock.

German Shepherd Dogs. Female (left), Male (right).

Image via Wikipedia

In human social orders, archetypical shepherds are those who influence, guide and govern the attention, perception, and behavior of a society of people, such as a church congregation. They do not primarily explore the world or judge the world (reactively) or save the world. They rule the world or govern it.

They intentionally name or label what is right and what is wrong, then train judges to promote those systems of labeling. Shepherds may use propaganda or any other means to direct the well-being of their flock, to keep their flock loyal, to exclude or punish the disloyal, and to demonize not only wolves but any perceived threat to the flock.

Further, shepherds may demonize the methods of shepherds, such as to monopolize on those behaviors most relevant to their interests. For instance, shepherds may universally condemn propaganda, yet also universally apply it with intricate competence. They recognize language as simply one tool for influence among many tools for influence. They establish taboos. They may form diagnostic systems for labeling various ideas as crazy (to lock people up) or even criminal (to execute them).

Shepherds may wish to identify physiological contagions and then quarantine sheep to possibly eventually recover and then return to their economic functions. However, with any actual contagions, it is equally important keep the contagious away from the healthy, so that if those who are contagious die in quarantine, then at least they do not spread the contagion.

The issue is not much different for contagious ideas. Even if some sheep merely develop ill will, that must be kept within certain bounds or can be disruptive to the social order. Certain forms of ill will can be categorized as mental illness and medicated or again those sheep can be quarantined from the rest of society.

The shepherd recognizes the natural tendency to explore and encourages and guides it, yet also focusing it so as to avoid any subjects that may be deemed functionally best to avoid, at least for certain people at certain times. The shepherd recognizes the natural tendency or sort or prioritize as in judge or evaluate. Again, the shepherds train those who are ripe to judge to perform their judging in particular ways. If it suits their purposes, a shepherd might even cultivate dissent and controversy within a social order between a set of subcultures.

Recognizing the natural tendency of judges to become saints and then attempt to alter the world so that there is only good and no evil, the shepherd will also govern over sainthood. If conflicts between saints fits the social order, that is what the shepherd will promote or at least allow.

A shepherd is like a barber who trims hair in a certain way or a gardener who prunes a tree in a certain way. They partner with the natural tendencies as they trim or prune or govern and they promote the interests of the flock using words and any other method that suits their purpose.

While being such a shepherd may be universally condemned as evil, the fact is that there is such shepherding in the world and there has been for thousands of years. One can explore it or avoid it, promote it or condemn it, attempt to change it or accept it, and participate in it in any particular way or not.

Shepherds

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 756 other followers

%d bloggers like this: