Posts Tagged ‘respect’

The logical advantage: results beyond mainstream hysterias

September 9, 2014

Logic is what makes the difference

 

Have you ever considered the possible value of studying logic? Logic involves a specific kind of attention to language.

We’ll explore exactly what logic is in a moment. First, why would we explore logic? What benefit could it have?



The logical advantage

Logic is what makes the difference between people understanding each other or people arguing and fighting. It is very helpful for clear, concise, efficient communication.

Logic is also what makes the difference between investors who consistently make far above average profits and investors who are surprised by huge losses (occasionally or frequently). Surprised investors may get embarrassed about their losses, then even panic and start blaming others for their own choices (to gamble without a full comprehension of the actual risks). In other words, if they previously recognized and expected certain possible risks, then they would not be surprised if that outcome develops. So, therefore their surprise is an indication of their prior lack of attention to that potential result.
For instance, people may say, ”but I have a piece of paper right here guaranteeing that the insurance company will pay me in a case like this!” Shapes of ink on paper do not guarantee that the insurance company will be in business or will have the funds to keep every single promise (within a huge pile of unfunded promises) that it has made.

Legal guarantees are just legal guarantees. They are not actual restrictions on future developments, right?

Someone attentive to logic will recognize what a legal guarantee is and what it is not. They will also recognize (without emotional distress) that an insurance company is a business that is accumulating a huge collection of legal liabilities and then gambling on the possibility that the company will have enough new revenues (like from monthly premiums) to cover whatever legal obligations they have at any particular time.

Or, people may say, “but the government regulates this kind of investment, so it must be safe because the government would never support anything that was not beneficial to all of the participants involved.” With that hysterical “logic,” the people who buy state lottery tickets will brag about how they “know” that they have better odds than the people who play bingo at church or who play slot machines at the casino. “We know that our lottery tickets are good investments because we bought them directly from the government!”


Logic vs. mainstream hysterias

We can generally contrast logic with hysteria (as in distress or panic). Let’s consider now how presumptions and frustrations can be experienced in two totally distinct ways.

Someone attentive to logic will recognize frustration as a signal that there is a presumption that differs from reality. They may be curious or even committed to identifying the various presumptions (which are often unstated) and then assessing each presumption relative to the higher standard of reality. Imprecise presumptions can be refined. Irrelevant presumptions can be discarded.

They can calmly look for the unfulfilled interest behind the frustration, then discard or refine methods that are ineffective (disappointing). The frustration and disappointment are welcomed as opportunities to identify potential sources of huge improvements in efficiency and satisfaction. All of this contrasts sharply with hysterical reactions.

In a panic of distressed hysteria, the logical functions of the brain can get buried under the stress hormones designed for physical activity (for fleeing and for fighting). When there is a contrast between presumptions and reality, terror floods through the organism. Instead of favoring the actual reality as the higher standard over the presumption, some aspect(s) of reality may be neglected or even condemned as “wrong” or “something that should not be.”

The presumption (though clearly inconsistent with reality) may be worshiped, then defended, justified, and glorified. Reality is devalued or even totally sacrificed while the presumption is elevated to the status of divine.

Contrary evidence (or even a skeptical curiosity) can be targeted as threatening. Displays of aggression (arrogance) may arise in an effort to distract attention away from obsolete presumptions (and the faulty logic that depends on them).

Agonizing may develop because the rejection of reality requires an anxious intellectual activity (in regard to how to fix reality to make it conform to the favored presumption). Also, there can be agonizing about any future reality that is contrary to an important presumption: how can that embarrassing “evil” be prevented? The result can be political campaigns and even the mass programming of curriculum to promote one perception over any perception that threatens the recognition of the presumption as just a presumption.

 

The hysterical will anxiously ask “how can we make the world from how it should not be in to how it should be (according to whatever presumptions)?” They will collect in to groups of fundamentalists and fanatics and then fight all of the other hysterical idealists who agree with them that the world should not be how it is, but who only agree on a portion of the presumptions about how the world should be.

“Those people are crazy hysterical idealists who only agree with me about 86% of how reality should be (or certainly no more than 97%). How can they be so foolish? What is it with people these days?!?! Let me think of all of the irrelevant reasons that I can use to justify dismissing the very frightening display of skepticism and alternate interpretations!”


Frustration: a threat or an ally?
So, those in hysterical panics have no real appreciation for their frustration as a signal to slow down and invest in logic. They just go back and forth from one level of frustration and anxiety to another: moderate, extreme, a brief relief through exhaustion, then another round of escalating frustration, resentment, and animosity.

“Those horrible other people are getting in the way of me fixing reality so that it conforms to how I wish it would be! In fact, I think some of them may be to blame for reality being how it is (and for my very important presumptions being inconsistent with the inconvenient and frustrating details of reality). Actually, it is not reality that is frustrated me, but those unreal people over there- yes, so unreal- who are the ones who are frustrating me. I need to do something about them. This frustration should not be how it is. I deserve better. I should not be in this hell. Once those people stop ruining everything, then I am going to fix reality (to make it from how it actually is in to how it should be) so that I can earn my way in to an eternal heaven eventually, but just not yet.”

Recall the teaching of the Ancient Hebrew prophet Isaiah: “Note that some worship without effect, teaching human presumptions as if they are the highest standards of reality.”

(In the Gospels of Mark and of Matthew, Jesus Christ directly quotes that teaching of Isaiah. Comprehension of these teachings in modern Judaism and Christianity are evidently quite rare.)

What if we respected frustration instead of condemning it, avoiding it, fearing it? What if we recognized what presumptions are? What if we respected how they can be useful, but also can lead to confusing one thing for something else? What if we were alert to the dangers of presumptive idealism and making our preferences in to full-scale hysterical idolatry?

Presumptions do not need to be avoided (which would be an extreme of delusional perfectionism). Presumptions can be respected without worshiping them in hysteria or defending them in a panic. Presumptions can be recognized, then evaluated objectively by measuring reality, and then updated or discarded.



So what exactly is logic?

Logic is a specific kind of attentiveness to language (a certain kind of mindfulness). Studying logic, we can explore how certain initial presumptions or speculations can be connected to a later assertion or claim. We can even notice how certain pre-existing conclusions can be justified or rationalized through constructing certain premises or seeking out certain information as evidence, then presenting it in order to bias others toward our pre-existing conclusion.  In mild hysteria, unsound logic is also used to resist reality and learning, and then that process can be ironically labeled by the hysterical one as “skepticism.”

The presenting of particular information as evidence (even as justifying a conclusion deemed favorable) may be done in a few different ways. We could call some presentations logical and some presumptive or even hysterical.

Here are some examples:

Cholesterol levels are high around tissues that are damaged, therefore cholesterol is the sole possible cause of the damage to the tissue.

Fire trucks are frequently present near burning buildings, therefore fire trucks are the sole possible cause of the fires that burn the buildings.

Once a particular presumption is worshiped as sacred, then all forms of skepticism about it are considered threats. Curiosity becomes the most disturbing of all possibilities (as George Orwell would have said, “in a time of universal deceit and denial”).

But the idea that mass hysteria and delusion are especially new is also presumptive. Sure, modern systems of indoctrination (such as cable television and public schools with their common core curriculums) are unusually efficient. With advanced technology, tiny groups can promote a historic extreme in consensus groupthink among immense masses of people. However, what if logic has never been especially popular?

Why are people so easily deceived when a perceived authority announces a new cause for hysteria and paranoia? When the high priest of the ministry of health presents a correlation about high levels of cholesterol as a cause, why are people so naïve? Why do they then defend their presumption to avoid being revealed as naïve?

It is simple enough. The ancient reptilian brain takes over the neurological functioning of the masses. The elite recognize this and create programming systems to install propaganda.


The logic of programming hysterias

A group of naïve people herded together in to a kindergarten class can be fed information like “cholesterol is a substance that your liver makes to poison you.” Then, they can be manipulated in to repeating back the propaganda slogans to receive social validation from the teacher in front of the whole class. They are given report cards and, if their blind conformity is sufficient, then they get promoted to higher grade levels and eventually receive a diploma or even a PhD.

The same basic methods are used in churches as well. In other settings, like plantations, the use of propaganda is less emphasized in favor of physical coercion, torture, and threat of human sacrifice.

In the specific case of taxation, the agents of the government intimidate their economic resources, promoting compliance through threats of arrest, incarceration, asset seizure, garnishment, and foreclosure. To minimize rebellion and competition, the government agents criminalize unauthorized acts of extortion. This maintains a near monopoly on extortion within their system of taxation to redistribute wealth from their human resources to the agents of coercion.

Once the masses are sufficiently terrified in to compliance, then the court system can dictate what form of payment of the invented tax liabilities is allowed. A court could allow taxes to be paid in many different ways, like wheat, firewood, or gold. Or, a court may allow only one form of payment.

Whether a court accepts several kinds of payment or just one form of payment, their system of intimidation can create a lasting surge in public demand for that form of payment. In the case of the Confederate States of the Southern U.S. in the 1860s (the Civil War era), certain pieces of paper were accepted as a valid way to pay taxes to the ruling court system. However, as soon as that court system was defeated and the ruling court system was suddenly the United States (not the Confederacy), then public demand for the confederate currency disappeared almost instantly.

What is the basis of power for every government in human history? The rulers have military superiority over the ruled.

Further, lots of propaganda can be publicized to discourage people from recognizing that guns are what give courts power, not incidental things like gold. (Without the guns of the court system, the people would not be interested in gathering gold to pay debts to their well-armed extorters who dictate that only gold can be used in repaying the debt… because the court system has created a monopoly of exclusive access to all the gold mines in the region.)

Governments may say that “Unauthorized killing is a shameful crime.” Then, they may add that military drafts are sacred institutions and that failure to participate in government-approved slaughters and genocides is also an even more shameful crime.

However, there is no objective difference between one slaughter and another. Every government justifies their own slaughters (usually as revenge for other slaughters or as pre-emptive strikes to protect the masses from… unauthorized warfare).

But for those deep in programmed hysterias, these ideas may be disturbing or spark shame or guilt. “Are you saying that the story of Santa Claus was deceptive and not literally true in every detail? But I do not want it to be true that I used to be naïve. I would rather to have never been naïve and certainly not now. Go away, you pesky jerk. You are too analytical. It is infuriating.”

So, they may launch heroic crusades to save the world from deception (and from corrupt governments). What other kind of governments are there? There are many fantasy governments that exist in language, but perhaps have little resemblance to anything evident in actual human history.

So what is the logical advantage?

The logical advantage is to welcome the recognition of hysterias and similar mass delusions. We respect them. We do not deny them or try to hide them or prevent them or even justify them.

We just respect that hysterias exist (or at least might). We do not worship them constantly with sincere condemnations or any other form of attention.

What we do is to welcome our own interests. We do not relate to them with shame (even if we modestly keep them private or secret… or pretend that they are not what they are).

We can respect the Hebrew Commandment of “do not commit perjury” (as we respect the immense power of court systems of extortion and intimidation). We can recognize that “thou shalt not lie” is simply a behavioral manipulation, not a credible translation of an ancient criminalization of perjury. When we are under the physical domination of a regulatory supervisor, then we can respect that reality.

 
We do not harbor any hang-ups or fixations or attachments. If one shows up, we can recognize it and release it. We do not harbor hysterias.

Instead, we recognize our own interests and pursue them. We do not deny past naivete.

We do not worship sincerity as if good intentions were anything more than good intentions. We do not worship determination as if it would cure for frustration to just keep repeating the same thing over and over again expecting different results.
In other words, we respect this simple philosophical principle:

“If you have sincerity and determination, but not logic, then still you have nothing of real value. You are missing the point.”

(See 1 Corinthians 13 & 14)

What results do we get?

In regard to investing, we get consistent returns far above average. In regard to communication, we are attentive, discerning, selective, and effective.  In regard to health, we avoid the massive tangles of confusion produced by mainstream indoctrination about health (i.e. “poisonous cholesterol, demonic possession by a living entity called cancer, etc”) and we simply promote health (using highly efficient methods that we have no particular interest in any government institutions approving or publicizing).

In many other realms, we consistently produce far above average results. Why? It is not that our methods are actually all that radical or complex.

The masses just do things very inefficiently (in accord with their programming) and we avoid the massive pitfalls of complacent “tunnel vision.” By minimizing or entirely avoiding the immense risks of “average” methods, we consistently produce far above average results.

lyrics: witch hunt specialist

March 7, 2014

I used to resist           tension
I used to resist           stressing
I used to condemn     what I would resist
I used to pretend        I was not that which
I would resist

Now I can witness       tension
Now I can witness       stressing
Now I can respect          what I can witness
Now I can accept           yes I was that which
I would resist

If you reject me in    all the right ways
then I will love you    or that’s what I’ll say
If you accept me     will I then panic
If you respect me    will I dismiss it
as ridiculous

Don’t       tell       me       that there is nothing more

I          need      a goal        to focus toward

I          must     achieve       the next reform

I          will        perform     a miracle

or I will invest my whole life

in the path of self-rejection

I promise to make up for me (eventually)

I promise to become what I should be

I promise to stop this self-rejection

just as soon as I have earned that

My excuses are the reason why

I am the way that I choose to stay

Other people are the problem yes

That’s why I’m a victim of circumstance

 

I used to reject           tension
I used to reject           stressing
I used to condemn    what I would resist
I used to pretend        I was not a

witch

hunt

specialist

 

 

Secrets of the Rulers

January 17, 2014
Secrets of the Rulers
The rulers are those who set the rules for the masses to adopt. The rulers also arrange for the enforcing of the rules (by influencing their subjects to limit their behaviors to operate within the limits of the rules). The classic figure of power is the father figure, which can be taken to extremes as the heavenly father or Godfather, who may be called the father of fathers, the ruler of rulers, or the king of the kings. The holy father is a typical title for the ruling high priests (such as Father Murphy or Father MacDonald, etc), and the ruling father figure is not alone in ruling. There can be the great mother and also the elder brothers (deacons, etc).
These saintly intermediaries (below the Almighty Overlord) may take the role of the ally of the subjects (the good cop as distinct from the bad cop of the tyrannical and even brutal Godfather). These good cops gently train or program the subjects, though keeping available the psychological tool of a constant potential threat of conjuring the frightening demon of the higher authority (such as the principal of the school).
So, these rulers are interested in efficiency. Obviously, there must occasionally be SOME violation of some of the rules so that the rulers can make examples out of the violators. This is good for publicizing the penalties so as to promote widespread terror and compliance with a minimum of actual investment of resources.
Also, once the public’s attention has been magnetically attracted by traumatic punishments, there will be cases publicized of the great rewards earned by “heroes” who followed the rules exceptionally well. Beyond the glorification of exceptional cases of compliance with the rules, there can also be promotion of an ideal of even more extreme loyalty to the ruler’s ideals. In that case, we can glorify a hero who, in the face of temptation and even threats of persecution, demonstrates the ultimate in blind faith by rebelling against “unjust regulations” or “corruption.” The “whistleblower” and the “reformer” are, ironically, the ones most hysterically focused on “serving the greater good,” (which has been defined not by them personally, of course, but by the rulers). Why the obsessions with a particular ideal of “the greater good?”
Here is the formula of loyalist conformity: learn the pre-existing rules, follow those inherited rules, ferociously complain when others break them (out of competitive outrage over “them getting away with it” as in the jealous fear of “why should they be allowed to do what everyone else expects to be punished for doing?!?!?”), then heroically face “any consequences” of “blowing the whistle” on others. Loyalists will eventually cling to a particular problem, then a specific method of reform, then resist competing reformers (often with tremendous animosity). Note that it is easiest to rule those who are compulsive, who are most predictable in their reflexive responses, who react with the maximum of consistency.
What is the pinnacle of the fanatical idealism? “With no concern for the appreciation of others, the great heroic savior will sacrifice everything (except their own ego) to be the martyr who bring downs the corrupt rulers (or dies trying).” The ruling system glorifies martyrs and rebels, which serves to program the masses with sentimental and emotional compulsions and obsessions.
In fact, the heroic revolutionary is the most glorified ideal of many systems of imperialist coercion. The two central figures of worship are typically the great savior and the great villain.Those who agonize over “good vs evil” or “right vs wrong” are possessed by the ruler’s demon of worshiping social conformity (paranoia). They obsess over policing their world. They are the ones who most ferociously attempt to instill in others a sense of guilt and shame for “not preventing the world from being how it should not be.”They neglect “the tree of life” in order to attempt to bring down evil, but they are like people trying to preserve one side of a piece of paper while destroying the other side of the same piece of paper. They are perfectionists in hell, climbing high up the forbidden tree of the obsession over good and evil, then refusing to climb down, insisting that first they need to save the tree from leaves.
Specifically, they say that they desperately need to save the tree from “the down side leaves” which means the side of the leaves that face the ground. They turn the leaf upside down in order to save it from having a side that faces down, but soon they are exhausted because there is something wrong with these leaves which almost seem to have two sides, which is an insult to their sincere idealism about how leaves should be.They are fools who are not fully fluent in language and argue over paradoxical phrases like “literal interpretations.” (How can an interpretation be absolutely literal if it is also an interpretation?) They are fanatical conformists, idealistic perfectionists, fundamentalist loyalists, paranoid worshipers of a sacred demon called “evil.”
Of great value to the rulers are confusion, paranoia, guilt, and even panic. With systems of confusing deceptions, such as the Santa Claus myth, the behavior of naive children can be very efficiently influenced. The anticipation of heavenly rewards can be contrasted with anticipation of embarrassing “gifts” of coal for the disobedient, untamed child.
Through the methods of deception, small amounts of reward or punishment can be used for even greater influence. Further, by concentrating the rewards or punishments in to special rituals such as the Christmas morning festivities, maximum lasting emotional impact can be achieved. The idea of the great benefactor is driven deep in to the psychological frameworks of the impressionable children of many cultures.
In order to maximize efficiency, the rulers also tend to concentrate their acts of violence. A few very disturbing attacks can be more much effective at intimidating the target populations, especially if the attacks are well-publicized, then frequent small attacks.
Rather than an occasional smack on the wrist, parents can efficiently rule through the psychological intimidation of “do you want a spanking?” Of course, occasional fulfillment of these threats maximizes compliance. The best threats may be those that are big and emotionally-preocuppying, yet without being altogether disturbing (like so much that it interrupts the economic productivity of the human resources). Generally, programming disgust or contempt is sufficient to produce compliance. However, in some cases, disturbing certain subjects may be valuable to the rulers- or even sacrificing them, such as in rituals of human sacrifice like capital punishment or warfare.
Less extreme than disturbing the subjects (terrorizing them) is crippling or handicapping them. This is typically much easier than constantly terrorizing them and can be done in a variety of ways.
For the moment, let’s consider obvious things like high-heeled shoes and then biochemical intoxication. The high-heeled shoes not only impair the ability to walk, but have long-term health effects on those influenced to wear them regularly. But that is a relatively small “handicap.”
As for constant intoxication, that can be produced by programming the masses to desire to eat substances that impair their neurological functioning, then providing those substances in abundance, even at the exclusion of any alternative. Obvious instances would be alcoholic beverages, but there is a long list of substances that rulers may value for promoting compliance among the subject populations.
Another obvious example would be cola beverages, with acidic pH typically in the range of 2.5 (which is not acidic enough to damage a healthy stomach, but will steal energy / electrons from the subject organism). Some substances promoted by the rulers are highly toxic, others moderately toxic, and other addictive without being especially damaging- at least as long as the addict can avoid withdrawal symptoms by maintaining their dependency on the medications or other intoxicating drugs.
As a result of the deliberate systems of biochemical intoxication, certain subjects will experience chronic pain or fatigue, and others chronic brain fog, seizures, or sudden inability to concentrate. Whether the medical crippling is moderate or extreme, physical or neurological, the rulers may greatly value a bureaucracy to govern the administration of “food” and drugs. The lower-ranking priests of the ruling class will be systematically hypnotized, then they will swear oaths to the system and finally be licensed as agents of the system for programming medical doctrines in to the masses. The practices of these “medical doctors” will then be protected and promoted (such as when subsidized by tax-payer funding). Further, competition can be excluded, especially competition that promotes health and detoxification, which tend to reduce compliance and require the rulers to use greater amounts of force (and more frequently) in order to maintain the submission of their subjects. (Of course, any method of promoting health that is especially effective can be adopted by the rulers and forbidden to the subjects.) labeled jar A brilliant system for promoting paranoia is the use of diagnostic labels as if those labels have the power to cause illness. Naive, intoxicated, hypnotized subjects can be programmed to worship a demon which they believe is possessing them, such as by telling them that “your baldness is causing you to lose your hair.” By making up a name for an effect and then referencing that diagnostic label for a symptom as if it is a cause of the symptom, the witchcraft of these licensed agents of the rulers can produce massive amounts of paranoia and even hysterical panics, leading the gullible to line up for “mandatory, free shots” that may produce well-documented detrimental effects (that are probably unknown to the well-indoctrinated subjects). Note further that this is all “hidden in plain sight,” yet directly referencing these topics may produce fits of repulsion in those most loyal to the system (those most terrified from social paranoias). Extracting the immature from this system can be time-consuming.
The physical tension of the passionate loyalists can be extreme. Further, the system typically involves frequent impairments to the functioning of the immune system, such as cough suppressants. Thus, the process of discontinuing to imbibe the primary intoxicants of the system can involve a sudden re-activation of the immune system. For those with economic paranoia, a re-activation of the immune system can mean unpaid time off from work. That can be terrifying.
Also note that nothing presented here is a condemnation of the system. If I tell you how a fence can be built to trap your dog in your yard, that is not a condemnation of the system for trapping the dog, is it? When a subject of this system is ripe to discontinue the worship of the invented demons of this system, then they will be able to recognize the system with minimal or moderate repulsion, rather than with tantrums of contempt and hysterical panics of guilt, leading to idealist insistence on finding ways of reforming or correcting the system. Who trained the masses to relate to revelations about this system with feelings of guilt and desperation to fix the system (or destroy it) and thus be the perfectionist savior of the millions of deceived subjects of the system? The system indoctrinated the masses with guilt. Guilt is paranoia about future punishment. What is the pinnacle of all threats? The threat of damnation to eternal tortures. What is the pinnacle of all bribery? The promise of rewards after death, such as through karmically-segregated reincarnation in to various degrees of paradise. There are many deceptions that can be promoted to the masses about various kinds of spiritual superiority. These competing fads can come and go like the ideals in the famous story of the Star-Bellied Sneetches. How much should we agonize over how to best prevent the massive deceptions of innocent children performed through ritual indoctrinations such as the myths of Santa Claus or Cinderella or the Superhero Power Rangers of the Criminal Justice League? We should agonize exactly as much or as little as our social conditioning dictates. There is no way to prevent all social conditioning. Social conditioning is part of the reality of all social animals. There are simply occasional evolutionary leaps in the effectiveness of competing systems of social conditioning. Respect the secrets of the rulers. Respect the rulers. Respect the rules. Be aware that influencing public perception is the greatest weapon of the rulers. They sacrifice who it is convenient for them to sacrifice. However, they demonize and “spare” their greatest partners in terrifying their subjects. It is no great slogan to put on a tombstone that someone was unjustly demonized by the rulers. Imagine a parade of non-violent protests condemning that another sincere, heroic savior was “unjustly punished” and consider if such parades perform the greatest possible service to the rulers. What a great ritual for glorifying the sacred rebel!
So, why did the Romans so rigorously publicize the story of a hero to worship who was “unjustly” tortured and then executed in a ritual of human sacrifice? Publicizing the drama (whether fictional or accurate) may serve the purposes of the empire. Is the story of Osiris or Mithras or Serapis all the more emotionally-powerful because of the “final victory” by the holy child of a virgin who is resurrected as the Divine Superhero over the Imperialist villains? The imperialists seem to think that there is great emotional power in that particular “happy ending.” They love that story so much that they put it in to lots of languages and made many variations to it. That story, in all it’s glamour and glory and gore, is the crowning pinnacle of all imperialist cultures so far.
REPLY from J.F.:The game is rigged. The whistles apparently need to be blown now more than ever, though, when blown, they only help to increase the paranoia, and helplessness, which ‘seems’ justified, and even neccesary.

More from J.R:

There are different kinds of whisteblowing. Not all are “idealistic.” There is filing a lawsuit, shouting to warn your family from approaching a dangerous boundary because a train is coming, or trying to launch a publicity stunt protest with bullhorns and signs to intimidate or shame the opposition in to some kind of reform.

There are also two very distinct kinds of paranoia. One is an indicator of a lasting exposure to an accurately perceived risk, like I am so paranoid about theft that I buy a dead bolt lock and use it in my front door. That kind of “paranoia” eventually resolves in to action, like a sense of being bothered enough to do something different, to explore some new action. That is “healthy.”

There is also paranoid delusion, which is like when someone has deep terror about the possibility that their own government would ever intentionally do anything that is not “very beneficial to everyone”, like a state lottery gambling promotion that is horrible financially for most of the participants. So, there is the first delusion (programmed by propaganda) and then a complex set of “compensations,” like distractions from the obvious. So, there can be delusions that lead to paranoia like the idea that there is a form of physical reality called diabetes or goiter which possesses people and alters their blood sugar or produces growths on the neck. That is delusion and it is rooted in paranoia.

In the case of goiter, it is the relative absence of iodine (relative to “poisons” like flouride and chlorine) which prevents the thyroid gland from properly functioning and removing waste, thus leaving a “growth” of dead cells that the body is unable to remove. The growth or tumor is physically real, but it is an effect or symptom.

Then, a linguistic label is created called “goiter,” which is related to as a cause. The Almighty creator is rejected so that the winner can instead worship the demon of goiter and try to fight the demon. They take more antibiotics to fight the demon that they worship, which helps a bit for 3 days, but then causes 5 other problems.

Soon, the worshiper of mainstream demons is scheduling a surgery and arranging to live with 6 lifelong medical addictions. They fight not just the demon of goiter, but also diabetes and obesity and hypertension and a long list of demons that they claim to “have” (to be possessed by). “I have diabetes, which is a linguistic label for an effect. I am worshiping the label and fighting it and trying to remove the label from a jar by rotating the jar exactly 90 degrees.”

That is deep in mainstream paranoid delusion. That is the typical program of the masses.

The same kind of delusional paranoia is at the core of many other fields of activity, such as investing. “I am investing to hedge against inflation.” That could be functional paranoia, but only if people are actually monitoring objective measures of inflation. Most people are fighting something that is not present. They do not recognize that inflation is a human behavior. They think of it as some mysterious demon. Of course, that is just what the media programs them to do.

“I must concentrate all of my wealth in to mortgaged real estate to reduce risk.” That is delusional. Diversification reduces risk, not concentration- especially not in to the least safe market available: investing in real estate with borrowed funds.

Respect for consensus & propaganda

January 14, 2014

I think of the practice of respect as important. I am open to respecting anything. I respect language and the clear utility of communication. I also respect governments as operations of organized coercion that tend to present biased perspective and may even frequently use deceptive propaganda.

Social propaganda has conditioned the masses to associate credibility with popularity, like if “most everyone” believes that all saturated fat is poisonous to all living things, then the consensus acceptance of the concept is typically presumed to be correlated (positively) to accuracy.  In other words, if 9 out of 10 witch doctors believe that scurvy is a demon which possesses people and steals Vitamin C from them, then the apparent consensus can be interpreted as evidence of accuracy.

So, “we must fund research for a cure for scurvy!” The root presumptions of a paradigm are not questioned because they are roots: underground, unconscious.

Further, I consider “social propaganda” to be an “artifact” of all cultures. In other words, there are no cultures without “social propaganda.” We cannot save a culture from cultural bias. All cultures program bias. That is simply what cultures do- just like governments influence perception and behavior.

So, I respect social propaganda (including all forms of “idealism”). However, I also respect precision.

There are some forms of fat that may be poisonous to some living things. Respect for precision in language means that I comprehend the idea presented by someone who says “milk makes people sick.” I understand the words in English. They did not say “SOME milk makes SOME people sick,” but I know that is what they meant… EVEN if they say something to a logical extreme like “ALL milk is detrimental to ALL mammals, especially infants.”

I understand that they may be attempting humor or perhaps they are mentally ill (in a panic of inflamed neurological pathology or schizophrenia). When you start looking at government bureaucrats as a bunch of panicking retards, you can still respect them. You can respect a pack of sheep and still fleece them or eat them or sell them or buy them.

When facing illogical/irrational hysteria, then respect and compassion can be relevant. That does not mean never locking doors or raising fences or firing bullets at the masses of panicking zombies.

Governments more or less conduct warfare and extortion rackets on domestic populations, then use propaganda to legitimize the extortion racket. I have extensively written about the history of the imperial systems of human government (going back at least to the Prophet Noah and the claim that unless all of humanity recognized the authority of the Hebrew Pharoah/Pope/Dictator, then another calamity like a flood would wipe out humanity in an apocalypse).

This story has been very popular as an instrument of terrifying propaganda, so it has been used repeatedly, just like many cultures have variations on the lie we call “Santa Claus” because the story-line is effective at influencing the behavior of children through deception. The story is more efficient than things like imposing physical punishment and pain intentionally in order to train the children.

So, the threat of divine apocalypse (or similar ideas like an alien invasion or devastating meteor) has been very effective for organizing human societies (being “shepherds of men”), at least when combined with occasional demonstrations of military genocide, such as the slaughter ordered by Moses in Exodus 32. (Seehttp://jrfibonacci.wordpress.com/…/a-brief-history-of…/ ).

Of course, with volcanoes and so on, there are real threats to human life. When humans claim to have power over these powerful things, like an astronomer might claim to have power over the sun merely because the astronomer can do math and forecast an eclipse, then the masses are not unreasonable in respecting the authority of the one who at least predicted the eclipse, even if the ruling Witch’s claim was “inaccurate” in regard to the idea that “this eclipse was caused because you people practiced homosexuality and drank raw milk and smoked pot, and therefore you must pay me ten coins a month for me to spend on behalf of God while in regard to all of the evil things that you have been doing to bring shame and disaster on yourselves, you must do as Bob Newhart said in Genesis 12:15… STOP IT!”

the functional spectrum of meaningful vs meaningless

January 1, 2014

  • There is no inherent meaning to anything which can make it hard to respect the meaning that most make up. There is no meaning of life until one is made up which doesn’t really effect what happens but only really alters the subjectivity of an author. Is that fool’s gold or is an objective approach the way of Satan? What is better than making sense? How about not making any sense ey?
    • You, Harry Lieberwirth and Hayley Hewland like this.
    • Harry Lieberwirth So uh, in assessment; ”what is the meaning of perceiving no inherent meaning?”Good one. xD
    • Daniel Fritschler Haha…thank you JR has inspired me to write as many things that don’t make sense as possible…this my friend is just the tip of the iceberg. ..and if you don’t think I can make it even more absurd just keep watching  . The only thing I want to do anymore is be absurd…I am a sick man and I need a minister to administer some helpful medicine.
      23 hours ago via mobile · Edited · Like · 1
    • J R Fibonacci Hunn The meaning of something- for you- is how you relate to it, how you label it, how you interpret it, how you describe it. If I ever said that the meaning of a communication is the RESULT produced or the BEHAVIOR produced in others (not just their experience), that is also a FUNCTIONAL approach.By functional approach, I mean studying something with an interest in how it functions, how it IS functional, how it COULD BE functional, and so on. People may debate these issues, but if they are arguing, that may not be what I am calling a “functionalist approach.”This approach is actually the normal spontaneous result of curiosity, but extreme efforts may be used to distract people from practicing a functionalist approach, such as by drilling them with social paranoia and idealism. So, instead of focusing on health, they may be pre-occupied with “fighting” a diagnostic label that some high priests say is possessing them.
    • Daniel Fritschler Yes absurdities are very functional in a world related to by many as making sense and being all label conscious. Sometimes you disappoint me when you try to get all functional as if that is really necessary or wanted…..functional could never be absurd just as absurdities could never be functional….grow up sensei you are stuck in “fighting” diagnostic labels with the rigor of a high priest wtf?
      23 hours ago via mobile · Edited · Like
    • Daniel Fritschler My options are that I can live a boring and miserable functional life of pretense or I can live a random and fun filled trivial life….which will it be Neo?
    • Daniel Fritschler Let’s face it functional implies the use of pretense….you can’t have one without the other.
      22 hours ago via mobile · Edited · Like
    • Daniel Fritschler Pre tension is the idea of what present tense? Haha absurd or what?
    • Jahnation Freedman Robert LeeWhen I let go of pretense, the words joy and peace take on real meaning.
      22 hours ago · Like · 1
    • Harry Lieberwirth And when neither subjective demands or preferences (like peace, joy, or social dominance for that matter) nor the condition of ”there can only be peace/happiness/joy if… X/Y” are a must (or are seen alike to the demands of a fictional character), ironically, there seems to appear a sense of peace regardless of the sensation, emotion, or desire.. a sort of relaxing into it. Suppose ”trust” could be another word. Like watching a thunderstorm or trees wave in the wind quite contentedly, either way.http://vimeo.com/66483892
      21 hours ago · Like · 1
    • J R Fibonacci Hunn Daniel, you made a “false” either/or “bind.” Here is an example of a functional approach.David (from Rage-Debate) says “low pH causes cancer.” That is fine, but I say “so what?”I know how to alter the pH of cells so that they stop producing the effect(s) called cancer. I can be naturally curious about “what is pH” and “what is cancer?”By not getting caught up in the labels or the conventional models of how people use the labels, I have power. I now that pH is an effect and that cancer is an effect of that effect.

      People who relate to cancer as a cause (or to pH as a cause) may have a paranoid panic of trying to fight “nature.” They are not using language from a functional perspective.

      21 hours ago · Edited · Like · 1
    • J R Fibonacci Hunn pH is not a “something” that can “possess” someone. It is a scale of measurement.To say “your temperature is high, which is causing your fever,” is the paradigm of nonsense used by people who say things like “cancer is causing a tumor to grow.” The cellular balance of electrons to protons, which can be measured on the pH (“potential Hydrogen”) scale, inhibits the normal functioning of the mitochondria and leads to a cessation of aerobic metabolism and a growth of tumors, which can then be labeled “cancer.” In other words, cancer is also a diagnostic “measurement.”Billions of dollars can be spent to look for ways to profit off of this language system of nonsense and anti-functionality. That is no great concern to me (because I am neither a loyalist to the mainstream medical myths nor an investor in the commercial business of symptom management and pharmaceutical addictions).Even if I had any concerns like those, my higher priority would still be to influence my own pH levels to promote my optimal functionality. In doing that, of course the effect of cancer would discontinue.

      Cancer is just a cellular behavior. If I stop creating that behavior in the cells, then that behavior stops.

      21 hours ago · Edited · Like · 1
    • J R Fibonacci Hunn Here is the original exchange between David, myself, and Mark Dey (whose wife is Angie/”Ang”): https://www.facebook.com/mark.dey.98/posts/10202826529893663

      So ang is gonna try the paleo diet out in the new year. I figure the easiest way…See More
    • J R Fibonacci Hunn So, in language, we can form absurd constructions, like “I would have more hair if it just was not for this baldness slowly creeping back on my forehead.” I occasionally play in the absurdity. However, this is to point out the prevalence of the absurdity to those who are ripe.The fact that we can use language to say “hi, how was your Christmas?” is MIRACULOUS. People who also speak English well and are not deaf can UNDERSTAND that strange sequence of sounds (or read these shapes on this screen). This is fucking amazing.So, if we start with this pattern that I label “respect” and then we “respect language,” of course we encounter a ton of mainstream absurdity and BS and idealism and paranoia and idolatry. However, that is not the point. Respect does not end because we begin to observe the variations of contrasting “disrespect.”That is the sin of the ignorant, the heathen, the goy/goyim, the gentile. Just because lots of them say that they follow Jesus or Isaiah is irrelevant. They are totally ignorant of what sin REALLY is.

      It’s not their fault. It is simply an observable distinction. Whether we use any labels about these distinctions, you notice the very different energy or “spirit” of people. You can tell easily who “reeks” of fear.

      Then there is a stage of mocking disrespect, which can be fun. Again, that is not the endpoint either.

      But if you can’t respect language, then you cannot mock disrespect (disrespectful language). If you cannot mock disrespect, then you are not ready for the next stage. You can, [Daniel], so you are.

      21 hours ago · Edited · Like · 2
    • Harry Lieberwirth The label respect could be interchanged with what i previously labeled trust or peace. Due to this sense, whether labeled respect, trust, or peace, it seems there is no longer a certain emotionally-attached predisposition towards perception (”something should/should not be a certain way/exist”).. the sense of perpetual frustration is then also absent. Could throw parables or allegory around trying to describe this sense, but if these descriptions are sounding absurd, doubt that would clear much up. If they do not, peace out yo
      21 hours ago · Like · 1
    • J R Fibonacci Hunn Sin is a frightened spirit of contentiousness, a neurochemical panic, a state of distress, the fight/flight response of the “sympathetic nervous system.” If you can witness this distinction, then you can notice it occasionally in your own history.
      Respect it. Notice the trauma/drama in action.It has value. However, there is something else that you might value even more.Mocking it is a function of creating clarity about it and withdrawing repulsion. Instead of saying “I hate the sympathetic nervous system and it’s functions,” with sincere hatred being ironically “sympathetic,” I say “man, this system seems pretty nervous. I think it might be some kind of a nervous system.”

      In that case, the absurdity is SO naked that anyone can see it. Some will think “that statement is stupid. Is that an insult against me? A threat? Why is Daniel laughing at that? I’m jealous!” That is exactly what they should think- and the repulsion or attraction that they should feel.

      21 hours ago · Edited · Like · 2
    • J R Fibonacci Hunn Harry, I am using respect as a verb. (And I recognize that trust, which you mentioned, could fit here too.) I am also setting up analogies that when a brain has available electrons and is PROGRAMMED through language to use them efficiently, then panic subsides *relatively* quickly.It is not that panic or agonizing or sin should not be. It is not that “you should practice respect.” It is that you either do or that you do not.”No try there is.” – Yo, duh!
      21 hours ago · Edited · Like · 2
    • J R Fibonacci Hunn Once it is experienced what “sobriety” is, then one can have a little to drink or none at all. However, the panic of urgency to “drown” the shame will subside as the shame relaxes and self-respect develops.The Jedi novice first learns the consequences of the “typical” habits. Then, an interest in cultivating CHI (available electrons) may arise. Then, methods of cultivating it can be explored, as well as a recognition of activities that waste “precious energy.” An interest in the de-programming of crippling mainstream habits may arise as well (one of my recent favorite past-times).The one who has immense reserves of Chi can do things that are “wasteful” (exhausting/crippling) for the novice- or simply impossible. If the novice is attracted to cultivating an abundance of Chi, then certain patterns of activity follow.
      20 hours ago · Edited · Like · 2
    • Harry Lieberwirth Not sure if you meant to imply you thought i implied ”should practice respect” (?), but i meant that in what i perceive as respect, the persistence of the feeling ”something should/should not be that way or appear to exist” is noticed as absent.. not that emotions, fear, etc, are absent in and of themselves, just an absence of a condemning pre-disposition (pre-judging? lol.) That is to say in the sense that i use respect, the sense of ”should” and ”should not” don’t play a prominent role, or none at all. Not too familiar with the biology, chemistry or neuroscientific sides, can only describe feelings and recollections of experience.. but yes, it seems to make sense that certain behaviours become hardwired, so to say.Have made no study of in how far this can be affected through physical aids (particular diets, drugs, herbs, etc), though it seemed to have coincided with some advaitic, buddhist, and taoist practices. That’s not to say i have the opinion that aids are useless, wouldn’t know, and it seems to make sense that certain compounds in food can can effect chemistry in relatively harmful ways, like poisons, or affect it in relatively beneficial ways, though i don’t know of an example for that. Did read some of the articles on wheat and paleo diet that you shared and they seemed sensible.. but ultimately it seems like either not enough of it is eaten in general to inspire the bouts of extreme emotional conflict, paranoia, etc, or perhaps the effect or intensity thereof varies from body to body.. like allergy?
    • J R Fibonacci Hunn Yes, behaviors do “entrench” neural pathways. That is why the confusion stage is so important- a breaking down of prior entrenchments.
      20 hours ago · Like · 2
    • J R Fibonacci Hunn One who respects language will notice “you should be quiet in the library” as exactly what it is. We can say things like that or not. The primary difference is in the mindfulness. I can use the same language patterns of a “regular person” and I may use them with distress, with mindful mockery, or with mindful “sincerity” (like to get the students in my class to be quiet in the library- whether through terror or distraction, etc).
      20 hours ago · Edited · Like · 2
    • J R Fibonacci Hunn “I want to congratulate you, class, for how quiet and respectful you are. When we go to the library later today, I am going to be very proud of you for following the rule to speak only very quietly while in the library. I appreciate and value each of you very much. You are such a GOOD class!”
      20 hours ago · Like · 1
    • J R Fibonacci Hunn That is just mindful programming. If 60% of the children understand English, that may be enough to sway the entire group, because a class of children function as a herd. They pick up cues from each other. If the “leaders” of the class are enrolled in policing the rest of the class, then the teacher is successful in their manipulation.Even if the manipulation is only partly successful, that is still effectiveness.
      20 hours ago · Edited · Like · 1

      • Today
      • Harry Lieberwirth
        Harry Lieberwirth

        ‘Sin is a frightened spirit of contentiousness, a neurochemical panic, a state of distress, the fight/flight response of the “sympathetic nervous system.” If you can witness this distinction, then you can notice it occasionally in your own history.”

        Thank you. Its funny.. some interpretation might see this as saying that state is ”bad”, because ”sin” is often considered a ”bad thing”. Ie, interpret it as an accusation (which is in the spirit of ”sin” in the bible, i hear). But what i read is that you’re simply pointing out, that you perceive that that which in scripture is referred to as ”sin”, is a neurological effect, or a perceivable phenomenal event. I just noticed how if the assumption that ”sin should not exist by definition” is there, and there is an emotional charge or neurochemical panic (”sin”), then the word ”sin” is somehow a huge trigger. or ”A sinner cannot stand to hear the word ‘sin’.” Just seems.. strangely, poetically funny.

        Monty Python's The Meaning of Life (album)

        Monty Python’s The Meaning of Life (album) (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

      • J R Fibonacci Hunn
        J R Fibonacci Hunn

        Right, the “trigger” is perceived as THREATENING accusation. If you accuse me of violating a traffic regulation and you are not a cop, I will probably ignore your accusation.

        Other related words are shame or terror.

      • J R Fibonacci Hunn
        J R Fibonacci Hunn

        As well as something as simple as “tension” or “rigidity” or “fixation” or “compulsion.” If I say “you are bad” and there is a reflexive sense of being threatened, that is the “behavior” of insecurity .

        Monty Python's The Meaning of Life (video game)

        Monty Python’s The Meaning of Life (video game) (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Reality rewards respect

December 19, 2013

Respect

Respect Yourself (album)

Respect Yourself (album) (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

To respect does not mean to worship or glorify or blindly obey. To respect simply means to notice something for exactly what it is, to just accept it as it is without idealism.

When we first give attention to something, we inspect it (however carefully or carelessly) and then we make our initial interpretation of it and use labels in language to identify it. Respect actually begins after all of that.

Respect means to “look again” (to re-spect), to review, to re-assess (or at least to be open to making ongoing reassessments). Respect means to be interested in clarity, perceptiveness, accuracy, and precision.

Respect is in contrast to neglect. When we reject something in order to focus on preserving a particular presumption or ideal, that is idealism. Idealism can lead to quite disrespectful behavior, such as antagonistic arguing, ridicule, and contempt.

In contrast to idealism is respect and skepticism. Skepticism actually has the same linguistic root as scope, respect, inspect, and spectrum. Skepticism means to observe something carefully, respectfully.

Respect yourself

Respect yourself (Photo credit: Celestine Chua)

As for being respected by others, that can be an important concern. Those who have been harassed can appreciate the value of receiving respect from others.

Respect can mean for people to simply leave you to your own privacy. Further, respect would mean that people approach you and interact with you respectfully.

However, that is not the main focus here. We are focusing on the benefits of practicing respect.

What are the rewards of practicing respect? Reality rewards respect and punishes neglect.

When I am calm and offer respect, then I can notice what others miss (neglect). I notice risks and opportunities earlier than others (if they even notice at all).

I can notice the idealism and social paranoia that people may sometimes experience, respectfully observing others who are defending particular ideals in distress, rather than simply respecting ideals as ideals.

Of course, I can observe people condemning a particular idealism (or all idealism). I can notice the panic and distress of those who desperately promote some form of idealism, competing furiously with any potential threat to their sacred idolatry. I can engage with them selectively or delicately or even not at all.

The prophet Isaiah taught about respect as distinct from worship, presenting ideas like “some idolaters worship me only with their lips, but they neglect what is divine and only respect familiar traditions.” Jesus quoted this teaching of Isaiah in the Gospel of Mark, chapter 7.

Stained glass at St John the Baptist's Anglica...

Stained glass at St John the Baptist’s Anglican Church http://www.stjohnsashfield.org.au, Ashfield, New South Wales. Illustrates Jesus’ description of himself “I am the Good Shepherd” (from the Gospel of John, chapter 10, verse 11). This version of the image shows the detail of his face. The memorial window is also captioned: “To the Glory of God and in Loving Memory of William Wright. Died 6th November, 1932. Aged 70 Yrs.” (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Reality rewards those who respect reality. Reality neglects (or even punishes) those who neglect reality.

Where is reality? When did it start? What power is beyond it?

Reality is omnipresent, eternal, and omnipotent. Many people are familiar with translations of ancient words in to the modern word “God,” but which could also be rendered as “reality.”

 

Furthermore, there are 3 ancient words that all are commonly translated in to English as “love.” To translate them all as the same word reduces the precision of the teaching. Instead of using the word love, let’s take some familiar teachings and use the word respect.

Jesus was asked which are the most important teachings. He answered with a reference to the very first one.

First, respect reality, which has formed you as an aspect of reality. You are just one form of reality, among others- or you are the many variations of form that you can experience over time.

Second, respect one another. All that you experience is a pattern of reality. All creatures are forms in reality, formed by reality, and forms of reality. Reality includes all experiences and sensations and words and patterns and forms.

You have heard it stated like this: “Respect this that you are hearing, ye O Israel: the LORD thy Reality is inclusive. As a mansion includes many rooms, so reality is like a huge vine of which each of us is just a single branch or leaf. Just as you are a branch of reality, respect every branch of reality.”

In these two teachings, the entire value of spirituality is contained. For those who are not ready for the simplicity of these two teachings, there are additional teachings that can prepare them for the first two.

Again, these teachings are like the root of a tree and the trunk. When someone approaches from a distance, they will see the entire tree without precision. Then as they get closer, they can see the individual branches and variations. But when they get all the way to the base of the tree, then they will see that the trunk is the hub from which all the branches grow.

The curious ones will ask “how can there be a trinity and also unity?” The wise ones will say “how can a tree have three limbs and yet only a single trunk?”

Those who argue for exclusive monotheism or for exclusive polytheism are fools. They do not understand how their own patterns of using language are limiting their rewards.

Let them repent and be like children: humble and respectful. Let them notice that monotheism and polytheism are both entirely valid branches of the tree of life.

All things have their purpose. There is a time for hate and a time for love (respect). There is a time for peace and a time for war. There is a time for panic and a time for calm. There is a time for arguing and a time for introspection.

All things are pure. For the one who lacks respectfulness and is corrupted with idealism and self-condemnation, they find many things to disrespect and condemn. However, for the one who is pure, all of reality is worthy of respect.

Related articles

Inspiration, idealism, frustration, and maturity

November 12, 2013

nonsense

 

Inspiration is innate. We do not need to learn it. However, we can be trained to focus away from what inspires us. We may be distracted.

We may notice that all around us are powerful social influences. Certain people and groups have guided our attention and our behavior.

In our families, schools, and churches, we may be trained in various forms of idealism. Idealism means a specific model or pattern of how to relate.

Idealism organizes what we expect, what we respect, what we reject, what we value, and how exactly we respond to whatever we first notice and then value. So, we have all been exposed to these programs. The programs organize our lives, governing our experience. They systematically direct our values and our interpretations. They govern what we display, including what we may pretend to be.

The importance of idealism

Why is all of this important? Idealism can lead to us repressing some experiences and even rejecting them completely. We may numb ourselves to huge ranges of our own experience. What if instead we were suddenly respectful of all of our experiences?

Note that idealism has already trained us in what to respect as well as in what not to respect (or even to disrespect or reject). We respect certain things more than others. For instance, which do you respect more: the current laws where you live now or the laws that used to be dominant a few thousand years ago in a location far away from you? Do you give more respect to your native language or to a language which is foreign to you and totally incomprehensible?

Idiota identificate idioma idiotica.” (To the one who is ignorant, everything unfamiliar will be labeled nonsense. What a fool in the dark does not perceive or comprehend, they may even claim cannot exist. They close their eyes to relax, to cope with their fear of the dark and what horrors may be in it.)

A new respect

So, here are two realms that we could respect now (which we may not have been respecting already). First, we could respect the systems which have influenced our experiences. Second, we could respect all of our own experiences which we have been rejecting (perhaps even some experiences that we have been rejecting so completely that we might be totally ignorant of them).

Once we recognize that there are systems that have been influencing us, we could respect the various systems which have influenced our experiences. We can begin to notice the extent of their influence.

Have you ever noticed people investing huge amounts of time and energy in to ferociously competing with each other over which idealism is ideal, glorifying one ideal and condemning all the rest? It can be exhausting just to witness.

What if we respect all systematic programming of idealism as fundamentally similar? What if we respect the programming of a variety of ideals? The diversity of conflicting idealisms can lead to masses of people polarizing in to opposing concentrations of fanaticism. These opposing factions of idealism may erupt in to animosity, rivalries, feuds, and wars.

Respecting condemnation

All of those behaviors correspond to the experience of feeling threatened, as in insecure, as in afraid. Of all experiences that are systematically repressed and condemned, the condemnation of fear may be the most common.

Of course, condemning itself is a frightened behavior. The condemning of condemnation is the logical extreme of irony (and hypocrisy).

English: Managing emotions - Identifying feelings

English: Managing emotions – Identifying feelings (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Respecting the full range of emotions

We can categorize human emotions in to two basic groups: emotions of attraction and of repulsion. Further, we can consider a spectrum of inward and outward variations, like emotions of withdrawing or retreating as distinct from combative emotions of aggressively repelling. These “fight or flight” responses are both frightened reactions.

Among the emotions of attraction, there are receptive or inviting emotions like gratitude, delight, and enthusiasm, but also more assertive or aggressive emotions of attraction like inspiration, lust and greed. Some emotions are considered more masculine or more feminine, as well as more encouraged or discouraged.

English: Robert Plutchik's Wheel of Emotions

English: Robert Plutchik’s Wheel of Emotions (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Respecting frustration

Notice that frustration is one of the most conflicted of emotions. There is an interest in a possible outcome, then a sense that the possibility has been frustrated. A particular method had been identified in the hope of fulfilling the interest. However, after investing energy in to that method, the results have not been fulfilling but disappointing.

There is an interest, a hope in a method, an investment in to that method, and then a disappointment. But there is more to frustration.

Frustration is not mere disappointment. In the case of mere disappointment, there may still be a sense of calm and curiosity. If the initial interest is still a priority, then the curiosity will result in the exploring of other methods besides the method that was disappointing.

Frustration implies not only disappointment, but fear. There is a fear of failure present- a recognition that the interest might not be fulfilled. However, even with the disappointment and fear, there is also a distress. That distress is the conflict of being afraid and disappointed, but also being afraid to admit being afraid and disappointed.

When someone is frustrated, they may say things like “I wish this was working, but it clearly is not, and yet it really SHOULD!?!?” There is an element of confusion in frustration that is not present in disappointment.

Respecting confusion

What could be the source of the confusion that frustrates us? Could we be confused because of respecting an ideal which we have been trained to value and defend, but which is clearly inconsistent with our own direct experience?

Idiota identificator omniscient, humiliati!” (The one who is ignorant and claims to know everything, they will be humbled.)

It can be stressful to pretend that an ideal is realistic when here is extensive evidence contradicting a particular presumption or ideal. Such a pretense can lead to intense frustration.

“How do I advance my own interest without discarding an old model which I do not want to admit might be obsolete? I could keep trying what is obviously not working! I could complain loudly and hope that someone cares enough to come and rescue me from my confusion and distress. I could have a tantrum of frustration!”

Respecting tantrums

“I should NOT be frustrated! It is not that my ideals are idealistic. My ideals are self-evident, which is why I desperately avoid reviewing the original logical process which led to the forming of my sacred, self-evident ideals.”

“So, I will viciously ridicule or even physically attack anyone who questions my ideals. I will blame them for my frustration. I will have a tantrum, and then another, and then finally some more tantrums, all along blaming other people for annoying me with their attention and their unfamiliar perspectives, which they should have kept to themselves, especially if I directly asked them to share. They deserve to be the targets of my abusive tantrums of self-righteous, justified frustration.”

“By the way, I am NOT frustrated. I am not in distress. I am not in hell. I’m a very happy person! I was always totally happy until THOSE people came along and frustrated ME by witnessing the disappointment that I desperately am afraid of admitting is present.”

“Things should not be how they are. Things should fit my sacred idealism. I do not feel guilty for questioning my ideals because they are self-evident and I do not doubt them at all. In fact, I resent anyone who suggests that I might have ideals clouding my perception.”

“My ideals are the very best ideals in the history of idealism. I might admit that everyone else says the same thing, too, but they only say that because all of them are naively sincere, while I am clearly heroic in my loyalty to my ideals which are definitely not obsolete now because they never will be. My ideals are eternal. Everyone else’s ideals (unless they agree with mine, of course) are temporary and passing and idealistic. My ideals are the best. That is why I am always so happy and never ever frustrated, you know, like all of those other people who are so negative that they condemn contempt and so on. Don’t you just hate people like that? They are just SO dramatic, right? Plus, they could really use some more sincerity. By the way, naïvely sincere loyalty is in no way connected to frustration. So, in conclusion, because I do not deserve to be frustrated and because I should not ever be frustrated, therefore I am not now and never have been. Seriously, do NOT question me on this!”

Respecting terrified ill will

There are many social institutions designed to measure the spectrum of mental health or mental illness in a governed population. Those who demonstrate certain remarkable behaviors are likely to be identified and regulated (such as medicating them to subdue them or immobilize them).

I consider many emotions to be behaviors. Agonizing is an activity. Frustration also requires activity to escalate the original disappointment in to a full-blown tantrum of distress.

When we think of emotions like delight or rage, we can also think of facial expressions and physical gestures. However, all of those may be the results of a more subtle form of behavior: linguistic behavior.

English: Emotions

English: Emotions (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Respecting maturity

Recall that social institutions train us in what to value, what to repress, and what to pretend. We are trained in how to relate to our experiences in regard to how we label sensations and organize them in to perceptions.

What portion of reality do we perceive? A tiny fraction. With all of the sensations available to us, we filter out the vast majority of them and then focus on certain details as “important” and then organize those important details in to our experience.

How does one shift from the experience of frustration to maturity? First, one must admit to having had the experience of frustration, plus consider how it could be important. Without recognizing the importance of frustration, there would be no interest in learning from the process of frustration. There would be no distressed discontent to drive us toward maturity.

Maturity involves being perceptive of frustration and of idealism. The more precisely and quickly that I can identify frustration and idealism (in others but also in myself), then the more mature I am.

What is the distance between me and inspiration? There is no distance. Frustration arises only because there is an underlying inspiration which has been frustrated.

What has frustrated our inspiration? Idealism about how we should be and how we should not be serve the function of repressing certain inspirations and encouraging others.

Respecting social institutions

Will there ever be a social institution which does not repress certain inspirations and promote others? Will there ever be a social institution that does not bias people and train them in what to respect, what to reject, what to pretend, and so on?

What if the sole purpose of social institutions was to influence or govern human experience? What if my attention has been influenced? What if my behavior has been influenced?

Is this something to hide? Is this something to be ashamed of? Is this something to pretend is impossible because it conflicts with a social ideal that I may have been worshiping in idolatry?

Embracing maturity

Those who are open to frustration and grief (as in disappointment) have a remarkable opportunity. Because they are not terrified and ashamed of fear, frustration and grief (as in disappointment), they have a unique perceptiveness and clarity.

They are like people who are beginning to open their eyes as they live amongst a culture whose eyes are closed. Their advantage over the masses may be enormous. They may perceive things sooner and much more precisely than the masses.

They may accurately assess opportunity and danger, rather than rejecting all perceptions of danger in a hysterical, paranoid, new age panic of “anti-fear condemnation.” They embrace balance, rather than pretend that there is such a thing as a one-sided piece of paper. (In fact, they simply reject the idea that there SHOULD be such a thing as a one-sided piece of paper.)

Further, they may value the contrary opinions of others, at least occasionally. They may value interaction with others who are mature and respectful and insightful. They may seek out such interaction and divest from what is not working well in order to explore more attractive opportunities.

What is your interest in such conversations? What frustrations are you willing to release? What threatening idealisms are you willing to stop condemning, if only for a moment so you can pause to close your eyes and relax?

 

respect vs loyalty to what isn’t working well

November 11, 2013

God is with us!”

I consider people’s loyalty to “what isn’t working well” to be an issue for ME in my life and my business. We COULD distinguish ourselves by emphasizing a contrast. Here is “something to consider:”

I say “we are in the midst of systems specifically designed to distract, deceive, confuse, frustrate, and disempower us. They program us to reject ourselves, including the rejecting of certain emotions in particular. So, we can COME OUT OF THE BEAST, but not by staying loyal to it! We can shift from a conversation for EITHER loyalty OR reform… to a conversation for RESPECT.”

Loyalty

Loyalty (Photo credit: U.S. Army Korea (Historical Image Archive))

Respect

Respect (Photo credit: U.S. Army Korea (Historical Image Archive))

Note that “coming out of the beast” is NOT “killing the beast from inside of it.” The “beast” is not just an institution but a WAY OF RELATING. We can respect the system and even occasionally use it without having a terrified loyalty to defending it or reforming it.

We can begin by saying to people “what do YOU think about this idea that there may be systems that train us to be loyal to them TO OUR OWN DETRIMENT? Do you think an institution would ever program people to be loyal to that institution rather than loyal to their own family?” If we want a totally new dynamic, we must be willing to recognize old patterns and occasionally to even DISCARD them. How about just engaging with people directly in a remarkable conversation?

I occasionally find it frustrating to interact with people. I propose that many people- perhaps even myself- have had an undistinguished commitment to “be loyal to what is not working.” That hidden commitment to “what is not even working” BLOCKS the experience of simple disappointment and thus builds in to frustration: “This is NOT working BUT IT SHOULD!” I would only care that something is not working because I am disappointed. I would only say “but it should” out of NAIVE LOYALTY.

The loyalty represses the disappointment until I eventually get frustrated with “the system,” not even recognizing yet that it is not the fact that a hammer is not a saw that is a problem, but that I naively PRETEND that a hammer SHOULD be more like a saw. Once I admit that I have reached a point of frustration, then I am open to input from another. They may be able to not only help me be effective in regard to a specific issue, but to UNWIND an underlying catalyst for frustration and ineffectiveness and despair.

When I am merely disappointed, I can still explore new methods on my own. However, when I am experiencing the distress of frustration, assistance can be very beneficial.

So, how is this so unusually relevant? We are trained to be so loyal that we repress disappointment in “the system” until we reach a point of frustration. Further, in the absence of competent leadership, we direct our frustration toward investing in reforms that may never arise and may not be satisfying even if they do.

However, consider that ALL people who want some kind of systemic reform actually see systemic reform as a METHOD to produce the RESULTS that they really desire in their own lives (but they have been trained to be so deluded that they think reform is the best way to get those personal results). They need coaching and effective LEADERSHIP.

In regard to health, there are AMAZING results available by methods unfamiliar to the masses. In regard to wealth, there are also SHOCKING results available, but not through familiar methods!

The idea that “the government is going to save me” is an idea of desperation. Those who are frustrated and terrified may be so terrified of simply stating their frustration (because they are so loyal to the system) that they desperately hope for a government salvation. That desperate hope is also called despair. It is a form of paranoia, of slow panic.

An alternative is to convert the frustration toward initiative. One pathway for converting frustration to initiative is rage. Another is grief (as in expressing disappointment). I often find that the direct expressing of either rage or grief tend to produce a clear recognition of “why I care” and “what I value” and “what I appreciate” and to eventually resolve in to LAUGHTER (a sign of tremendous relief- much more powerful than a mere “sigh”).

Beast Within Me by Piedra

Beast Within Me by Piedra (Photo credit: familymwr)

Are YOU willing to welcome your own emotional experiences? Are you willing to divest from what is not working well and to instead explore a new conversation that respects emotions as sources of valuable feedback, that respects “the system” (recognizing what it is and what it is not), and that respects the results that are most attractive to you?

If so, I invite you to make a comment below. Thank you for your willingness to respect what you are… rather than reject what you are and pretend to be something else (or that you “should” be something else).

writing, distressing, resenting, and respecting

July 22, 2012
"Writing on the wood is prohibited."...

“Writing on the wood is prohibited.” DSC07600 (Photo credit: Nicolas Karim)

I write. Right now, I am writing this. What is the purpose and value of writing?

Writing is quite different from talking. Talking around other people- even if only talking out loud to myself- I may have an immediate concern with someone else’s experience of the communication, plus the possibility of dialogue. There is certainly unique value in talking like that. However, with writing, I can organize a sequence of thoughts without any interruption. There is also unique value in this.

Sometimes, I have been on the phone with someone and one of the two people (them or me) has talked for several minutes without any dialogue. Talking in person, there are more signals of interest and attention than when talking on the phone. During classroom lectures and long church sermons, people may have so little engagement that they fall asleep and start snoring. Have you ever been on a phone call in which one of the people actually fell asleep?

think

think (Photo credit: the|G|™)

On the phone, one long-winded speaker can go for several minutes before realizing that there has been no interest or attention for quite a while. Maybe the transmitting of the voice on the phone call has been inactive for a while and then a dial tone suddenly interrupts an entirely one-sided conversation. That can be quite disappointing.

When writing, I can explore my interests without concern for anyone else’s interests. I write about what interests me, even if what interests me is connecting to one or more people in particular ways, as in influencing them.

If I write something and share it, then if it is interesting to someone else in particular, they can read some or all of something I wrote. They can read it all at once or read it in sections or even read it twice.

If someone is not interested in something I wrote, I might not ever find out. If they find something frightening or otherwise unappealing, again, I might not ever know.

A student practices writing Chinese characters

A student practices writing Chinese characters (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

I can write something for myself, then revise it for someone else. Maybe I research a subject thoroughly and organize all of my notes in to a file of many folders, but from all of that material then I make very brief outline for a proposal to submit to a publisher. Or, maybe I write a simplified summary piece for children, focusing on dramatic highlights and leaving out any obscure references or complex themes. Or, maybe I write a private correspondene to someone that I know has certain interests and familiarity with certain details.

All of those variations of writing are informed by the original private process of making all of my notes and organizing them. After writing (or during a long writing process), I may have several conversations with people, perhaps as part of researching the content or perhaps to get some feedback as to how various people respond to the content of interest to me.

Writing

Writing (Photo credit: jjpacres)

Writing, I can actually invent an audience, as in one that may not even currently exist. I can certainly imagine things about an audience when talking as well, but any actual people may interrupt and present a different audience than the one I had been imagining.

I can write a letter to myself at a different age (decades older or decades younger). I can write a letter to someone who has been dead for a while- maybe centuries. I can imagine writing to a group of people who have not been born yet.

I can also invent a new character to be the author. I can write as if I were someone else other than who I am- someone real or imaginary.

Matej-writing

Matej-writing (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Originally, when I first sat down to write a while ago, I was thinking of writing something to my mom. So far, most of what I have written has probably been most interesting for people who are themselves writers (and I presume that my mom probably would not label herself a writer).

On average, writers may be some of the most introspective people. I am writing this for sharing with and connecting with people who are not afraid of introspection and honesty- who may even value it and seek out introspective honesty. Anyone else who started reading this probably has not kept reading up to this point, right? The prior content might be considered a filter, a barrier, a hook, a gimmick, a test, and all of the above.

So, my first thought before writing this was that I began to explore writing as a way to explore conversations that were not happening in person in my life. When I was very young, I wanted to interact with people, but my sister went to school and my mom did many things besides interact with me. One of the ways that I tried to get her attention was throwing tantrums. Another way was to do something that would predictably make her mad. Those methods worked well enough for me to repeat them for a while.

There were also many times when I did not want to interact with my mom, as in because of fear of her and her response. I wanted things like acceptance and interest and connection and mutual respect and affection, not rejection and dismissal and outbursts of distress. At various times, I got all of those things with my mom and I began to cultivate certain dynamics and avoid certain others.

English: Man in Distress

English: Man in Distress (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Everyone has sometime been around other people who were in some amount of distress. As a child, other people’s distress can be frightening. People in distress can be negligent or even abusive.

It is a very predictable thing that children or even adults would withdraw from someone experiencing a certain level of distress. People in intense distress may be drugged to subdue them or isolated in to jails and mental institutions, or simply killed to prevent them from injuring other people.

My mom was sometimes upset when I was a teenager that I did not talk with her more. I might spend a lot of time playing guitar and writing songs and talking on the phone. She might ask me a few questions and I might or might not even respond to her questions. I might go out of my way to avoid her.

I watched a TV episode yesterday with the words “guilt trip” in the title. I thought of my mom immediately when I read those words.

English: 1944 SOS telegram reporting airmen in...

English: 1944 SOS telegram reporting airmen in distress. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

When a person in distress is frustrated with other people’s lack of response to them, they can experience resentment and then blame others for withdrawing from them. To blame others for withdrawing is one form of what is called a guilt trip. Again, it is entirely predictable that someone in distress might blame other people for withdrawing from them. It would be unpredictable that someone currently in distress would suddenly speak of themselves as responsible for “driving people away.”

I have been blamed by many people for withdrawing from them. I have also sometimes been sudden and abrupt in my withdrawing. Sometimes, withdrawing is very disappointing to others, violating expectations and hopes, disrupting plans, even leaving complicated messes, revealing old distress or creating new triggers for distress and tantrums and resentment and revenge and guilt tripping.

When in high school, I withdrew from my first steady girlfriend when I realized that I was focusing on moving away to college and losing interest in the relationship. I withdrew gradually rather than crisply and cleanly and clearly.

Later, I withdrew from my son’s mom. In that case, I may have thought that my withdrawing might result in her affectionately chasing me. Sometimes, withdrawing produces a renewal of interest and sometimes withdrawing produces tantrums.

Eventually, instead of her gently chasing me, she crisply and clearly withdrew from me (or pushed me away), but one time in particular was quite messy and stayed messy for quite a while, not clean at all. Over the years since then, however, she and I have repeatedly chased each other affectionately, repeatedly withdrawn, repeatedly resented the other, and so on.

A button I once made

A button I once made (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

So, I admit withdrawing from her. I admit my experience of distress, sometimes intense, as well as resenting her (which is a form of fearing her, pushing her away).

I admit that she has also withdrawn from me and blamed me. We’ve had an enduring and powerful personal attraction, as well as several sudden and intense repulsions.

I have occasionally referenced proudly the fact that she has repeatedly “chased me affectionately” within the decade since she and I first stopped living together, as well as responding to me when I “chased her affectionately.”

I have defensively pointed to her recurring affection for me, like her affection would somehow cancel the validity of her past withdrawing and distress and blame. What was I defending? I was defending my guilt at her not being a lasting priority in my life.

I accept responsibility that she (and my son) have been huge active priorities in my life, though only sometimes. There have been other active priorities for me, too, such as earlier in July when late at night my neighbor has banged on my wall in distress. She was scared of her teenage son injuring her. I assisted her in promoting safety for her and her younger son. That also promoted tranquility in my environment so that I could sleep later that night without disturbance.

No one has a monopoly on distress- not my neighbor, not me, not my mom, and not my son’s mother. Sometimes, my sense is that certain people are craving for my attention, such as by throwing tantrums or “laying guilt trips” dramatically. I have done those kinds of things as well.

Show Some Respect

Show Some Respect (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

I accept responsibility that my son’s mom and I experienced both attraction and distress, both connection and repulsion, both resentment and appreciation, and so on. In fact, all of those aspects of life arise in almost all relationships in my life- eventually.

Do I expect that distress will ever permanently cease? That might be very disappointing! Have I been habitually responding to any experience of distress by blaming someone for triggering distress in me?

Sometimes, when I experience distress, I may withdraw or blame or repel or… write. Some people eat excessively in response to distress. Some drink excessively. Some talk excessively, especially after drinking excessively. Some read excessively. Some excessively write.

What does “excessively” mean? There is no specific boundary between excessive and anything else, is there?

I may have been excessively focused on my son’s mom at times. I may have been naive about what results would arise from my focus on her (or on anyone else).

Respect Yourself (album)

Respect Yourself (album) (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Or, maybe the word “excessively” is optional. More simply stated, I have been focused on my son’s mom as much as I have and as often as I have.

I have had a variety of experiences result from my focus on her: intrigue, delight, resentment, rage, apprecation, learning, repulsion, despair, guilt, distress, courage, joy, pride, grief, and boredom. In fact, this reminds of the time I was writing about her and I eventually got so bored that I woke up and realized that I had fallen asleep.

Respect is possible. I can respect distress. I can respect contempt. I can respect animosity and boredom and fascination and lust and hunger and danger and safety and anything that I can respect. I can respect life.

I can respect certain aspects of life more than others. I can avoid certain things and focus on certain priorities, then the priorities and the focus can change.

I can respect that the priority for some people at some time may eventually be whatever they actually are doing in the particular moment. They may lay a guilt trip on me (or on themselves: “I should have done what I wish now that I had already done!”) Or, they may congratulate me on my brilliant writing and share my blog. They may bang on my wall in distress. They may completely and utterly ignore me.

I can respect that other people can respect whatever they respect. I can respect that struggling to attract the respect of other people is one of the most common results of distress.

crisis, respect, and contempt

July 4, 2012

You may have noticed a crisis of respect emerging. Many people lately may speak of a financial crisis or economic crisis. However, perhaps there has been a crisis in a lack of respect for the instability of certain economic patterns and trends. People who respected certain instabilities have not been surprised by economic developments while many people who did not respect those instabilities have been surprised and disappointed in the results of their choices.

Maybe there has been too much respect for idealistic presumptions and not enough respect for realistic measurements. Maybe there has been not enough respect for competent financial analysts and too much respect for the commission-earning salespeople that entice the naive in to hysterical gambling on real estate with high-risk mortgages that have led to a huge increase in bankruptcies in recent years.

Certainly, there has been a financial crisis for many people and many business as well as the governments of many

Cover of "Contempt  [Blu-ray]"

Cover of Contempt [Blu-ray]

countries. However, some people have been cautious and conservative, leading them to benefit from the same changes that have produced a crisis for so many.

So, a financial crisis has developed, but in some places more than others. In Alaska, high fuel prices have led to a unprecedented surplus and profit. In Arizona, high fuel prices led instead to a reversal to the prior trend of suburban sprawl.

In any particular place, some people have had above average results for that place and some people have had below average results. Could it be that the social crisis is producing a shift in what people respect most?

You may have noticed a lack of respect for many things: a lack of respect for other people, a lack of respect for the power of courts and militaries (organized use of weapons), a lack of respect for the influence of language, and even a lack of respect for science and technology.

Some groups are losing respect faster than others: mainstream churches have decreasing participation, mainstream media is losing market share as the internet balloons in popularity, and mainstream politicians are losing respect very fast in some places. The masses are increasingly skeptical of how well governments in places like Greece and Japan will be able to keep their promises.

Further, many mainstream politicians have a habit of publicly criticizing other mainstream politicians, especially during “primary” elections. If the politicians do not respect each other, is it any mystery that so many people would tire of the cycle of optimistic campaign promises and finger-pointing to explain the lack of fulfillment of the promises? Likewise, if mainstream religious leaders do not even respect each other, will they attract the respect of anyone but the most loyal believers?

We are in the midst of a crisis of respect. Many people have invested their hope in huge bureaucracies to be responsible for them, like the socialized health care programs of the Soviet Union. When that union dissolved, the hopes and dreams of many patriotic Soviets also dissolved.

In my life, I have interacted with many religious leaders of many denominations. Not only do many religious leaders lack

W.C. Fields

W.C. Fields (Photo credit: twm1340)

respect for other religions, but also for politicians. When religious leaders join the choir of contempt toward politicians and governments, again, that may be a factor in people withdrawing their respect for those political leaders.

Note that I am not condemning condemnation. It is quite functional to rebuke a beloved child who is endangering itself naively, right? However, rebuking naivete is very distinct from people presenting themselves as religious leaders and yet inciting contempt among their congregation toward specific people and groups.

Is it the functional priority of religious leaders to incite contempt for people elsewhere? Did the most faithful religious leaders in the USSR incite contempt for the Nazis while the most faithful religious leaders in Germany incited contempt for the Soviets?

Inciting contempt is one thing that can happen. Media celebrities may incite contempt, including the media celebrities that are politicians. However, if a religious leader is faithful, would they incite contempt or rebuke contempt?

We are in the midst of a crisis of contempt. We are facing not just a lack of respect, but the presence of contempt.

What is there to do about it? One thing to do is to respect the addictive power of contempt.

Contempt arises from a mistaken presumption. If I have a false presumption about life and then life does not arise as I presumed that it would, contempt is possible.

In contrast, if I have no presumptions about life, then life will surprise me consistently, but I would never experience contempt just for being surprised. Contempt is a response to being ashamed. When I am making presumptions and then one of the presumptions is corrected by life, I may be not just surprised, but also embarrassed or ashamed at having made a false presumption and having the inaccuracy of the presumption exposed by life.

I may resist recognizing that I have made a false presumption. I may struggle against life to make it fit my presumption- or at least hide any aspects of my life that do not fit my presumptions. I may blame other people for being responsible for life being inconsistent with my presumptions. I may be afraid and invite attention and assistance, even by blaming and whining and raging.

Who can face my contempt and still show me respect, even if rebuking me? Who can I trust? Who can I trust to be a faithful religious leader?

Who will recognize the crisis of contempt as also a crisis of a lack of respect, even a lack of maturity? Who will lead a revolution away from contempt and toward respect? If not us, then who?

 

English: A chart demonstrating increases in th...

English: A chart demonstrating increases in the annual income of the top 1% of wealthy persons in the U.S. before economic crises. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 289 other followers

%d bloggers like this: