Welcome to the About Words website. Below is a brief audio introduction to this site.
Did you know that one of the most popular words on the internet is God?
Introspection- Ultimately, one can develop sufficient calmness, focus, and clarity to notice any rigidity of body and mind, then understand the underlying issues to resolve them independently of reliance on mentors. Mentoring of others can even accelerate one’s own competence.
Practices- The simplest practice for relieving stress is calm breathing. Here is the simplest form of that practice: take a slow breath in, then pause for a comfortable period of time, then slowly exhale, and then briefly pause again before inhaling.You can quickly experience that practicing a calming breath does in fact produce a calming effect. Next, you can learn the simple background of exactly how this practice works so well. Note that understanding how it works is entirely optional, although comprehension can be very useful as a source of commitment to applying the method consistently.
Notice that there are two common reflexes related to breathing: the startle reflex of holding the breath and the panic reflex of rapid, shallow hyperventilation. While these reflexes can promote survival temporarily, they are unfavorable as long-term adaptions or habits. When startled, it is natural to take a single sudden breath in and then hold it. If the fright is very brief, then the body’s next reflex often will be to calmly sigh.
However, when there is a longer period of caution or alarm, such as a startled inhalation followed by fleeing or fighting or freezing (holding the breath longer), then a singlesigh is not enough to return breathing to normal. At some point, a panting reflex will begin.Again, in many circumstances, the rapid, shallow panting contributes to the well-being of the organism. However, when there is lasting stress of certain kinds, a brief period of panting will not return the organism to calm alertness. In cases of distress, there will be the initial startle reflex of a sudden inhalation and hold, then that will resolve in to a sequence of gasping called hyperventilation.
The problem with hyperventilation is that instead of returning the organism from temporary alarm to calm, the organism will experience lasting anxiety (a semi-hysterical state on the edge of panic). Hyperventilating creates a deficit of carbon dioxide in the bloodstream. That state is called hypocapnia by medical professionals. It is a very common problem and can be very serious.
Basically, for a molecule of oxygen (O2) to be carried from the red blood cells to other tissues adjacent to the bloodstream, a molecule of carbon dioxide (CO2) is required (among other contributing factors). Hyperventilation starves the brain cells of oxygen not because of a lack of oxygen in the bloodstream, but because of a lack of carbon dioxide to transport the oxygen from the bloodstream in to the adjacent tissues.
There is only one primary ways that carbon dioxide gets in to the bloodstream: from out of the cells of the organism. Cells produce CO2, sometimes in small amounts and sometimes in large amounts.
Even in the deepest sleep of hibernation, there are biochemical reactions happening inside of living cells. These reactions often produce CO2 inside of cells, which can be then released in to the adjacent bloodstream. When there is physical exertion, such as walking, stirring, or sawing, that produces CO2 at a higher rate than when there is no exertion.
So, there are two major ways to increase the CO2 levels in the bloodstream. They can be used in isolation or together.
The first method is to slow down the rate of breathing (to slow down the release of CO2). The second method is to increase the intensity of physical exertion (to increase the production of CO2).Note that if someone increases physical exertion and then also increases the rate of exhalation (panting), that will reduce or eliminate any benefit from the increased physical exertion. The point is to put enough extra CO2 in to the bloodstream (and keep it there for long enough) that tissues will receive an increased supply of oxygen.
Are there real consequences of increasing or decreasing O2 levels in brain cells and other tissues? Yes, such as in the case of sleep apnea in which the brain is getting so little oxygen that it may produce a nightmare to wake up the body and force an interruption to the hyperventilation of the organism while asleep.
When people talk about anxiety attacks or panic attacks, they are referencing the predictable effects of chronic hyperventilation (“over-breathing). They experience “shortness of breath” (mild choking) because of breathing too fast.
When there is a chronic deficit ofCo2 in the bloodstream, that will always produce a chronic deficit of O2 within the cells (including brain cells but also in many other tissues). We can call that chronic anxiety.
In that case, a relatively mild startle reflex from an external trigger (which would not produce much more than a sigh from an organism with sufficient Co2 in the bloodstream) can produce a severe enough diminishing of bloodstream CO2 (and intracellular O2) that we would call that an attack of anxiety or an attack of panic (or an attack of asthma).
Anxiety, panic, and even asthma can be reliably produced by chronic hyperventilation. Of course, because of the diminished supply of CO2 in the brain among so many people, the simplicity of this mechanism is unfamiliar to most people. They are in a state of chronic alarm, paranoia, and hysteria.
They may be easily fatigued (quickly depleting the constricted supply of oxygen that is actually getting in to the brain and other tissues). If they attempt to exercise, they may overexert themselves and then pant, eliminating the potential benefit of the exercise to increase co2 levels in the bloodstream.
They may even experience despair. What can they do to resolve this? To frequently practice the calming breath, perhaps in combination with a moderate increase in physical exertion, has been established as a reliable way to eliminate the effect known as asthma (over the course of several weeks).
Not only is it quite easy to produce anxiety and hysteria through hyperventilation, but quite easy to reverse. Of course, there may be other health issues besides the supply of oxygen to the brain cells, but the vast majority of modern populations have chronic deficits of oxygen in their brain cells (leading to early death of brain cells), which is due to chronic deficits of CO2 in the bloodstream, which is due to excessive breathing (as in too rapid- not enough delay between inhalation and exhalation).
Why all the frightened breathing? Because the stress of modern life can be nearly constant. Even when people are not driving huge metal containers at high speeds, they may seek out a steady supply of stressful stimulation, such as dramatic soap operas, intense action movies, and news reports about disturbing scandals (sometimes featuring exchanges of antagonistic hysteria between two bickering fanatics).
In addition to frequent practices to keep CO2 levels in the bloodstream sufficient (through the calming breath and moderate increases in physical exertion), there is one other very simple practice that is easy to use. Before sleeping, someone can put a piece of tape over their lips. This can be loose or, if appropriate, tight.
What is the benefit? While sleeping, many people will typically breath poorly (as in excessively). This includes any snoring.
By greatly reducing the amount of air that escapes through the mouth (or blocking the mouth completely), this allows CO2 levels in the bloodstream to remain high for the entire period of sleep. Sufficient CO2 in the bloodstream results in sufficient O2 in the cells (including brain cells).
Why do so many people wake up groggy (and yearning for coffee, sugar, or other stimulants to create a flood of adrenalin and invigorate their blood chemistry)? They did not get much O2 while sleeping, so instead of their brain being clear and alert, they wake up foggy.
They find it hard to concentrate. Those ignorant of biochemistry may call this “an attention deficit disorder.” It is a deficiency of oxygen in the brain cells due to over-breathing / chronic hyperventilating / a deficiency of CO2 in the bloodstream.
After a few years of poor breathing and poor sleep, the brain can begin to accumulate toxins that normally would be cleaned out every night while sleeping. After a few decades, not only are they foggy, but they begin to physically stiffen. Depleted oxygen to the cells of the body is also known as suffocation. Some people have been suffocating for years and some for decades.
There are two basic categories of stress: future-related and past-related. We will quickly review them both.Future-related stress is of two general types: worry and hope. Both can produce stress. Neither is always “bad” (and stress is not always bad either).
In simplest terms, worry and hope both refer to ways of relating to a particular possible future outcome. There is recurring focus (as in “pre-occupation”) on at least one possible outcome. One’s current activities can be organized in reference to that future outcome. That can be very functional.
However, the “problem” with hope is that hope can lead to disappointment, which people may be seeking to avoid hysterically. The “problem” with worry is that worry can lead to despair, which people may also be seeking to avoid hysterically.
In other words, the real problem with the future-oriented stresses of worry and hope is not the actual future possibility. The underlying issue is present hysteria (distress) as a foundation for relating to future stresses.How can that underlying distress be resolved? See the “practices” section for a simple solution.
As for past-oriented stress, we can call those guilt and shame. Those can be internalized and then externalized.
Guilt is about pre-occupation with something that happened but related to with a hysterical idealism condemning that event as something should not have happened. What happened is not the source of the guilt. What happened is the trigger for exposed a hysterical ideal that has already been internalized through a process of social distress or indoctrination.
Guilt can be projected at others in the form of contempt. Someone else did something they should not have done, according to some linguistic ideals of hysterical fanaticism/ present distress.
Next is shame. Shame is about what did not happen. When we already have an internalized anxiety about what should happen, but then that does not happen, we call that experience shame. It is a chronic tension of desiring to hide the terror of failing to conform to a perceived social essential.
The only way to block the display of physical gestures that signal terror is through chronic tension of the face, neck, shoulders (etc). Shame and guilt involve the same physical tensions.
Also, shame can be projected at others (a common strategy to distract others from noticing one’s own shame) and that can be called resentment. We resent others when we are terrified that they did not do something that we hoped they would do, but we do not have the internal resources to flee in terror. So, we fight. We repulse. We resent and then present passive aggression or open condemnation and antagonism.
That shameful aggression is very distinct from violence that is designed to kill prey, to openly intimidate/deter disobedience, or produce a redistribution of some kind of wealth (as in robbery or warfare). The shameful aggression is intended to destroy someone socially (as in their reputation).
We are jealous of their results. We hysterically assert that we should have had better results. We blame them for our disappointing results. We attack them (socially or physically or both).
This projection of internalized shame does not resolve the internalized shame. It does not relax the distress and chronic tension. It can be very dangerous.
In the case of a past history of contempt or resentment towards others, we may consider that we value an increase in social affinity with a particular individual or group. In that case, an explicit apology may be helpful.
We state to them (in whatever way fits best, considerate of their own input) that we wish to apologize. We apologize for first being in distress, then we had particular hopes and/or worries (specifying them with enough detail to produce comprehension in the other party but without so much detail to trigger a surge of hysteria in them). Then, we related to them as violating our preferences (which terrified us), then we panicked, condemned their action or inaction, and then ongoingly practiced contempt and/or resentment toward them.
We state next that we withdraw our condemnation of their action (or inaction). We respect them and their choices. We admit that our expectations or preferences are the ultimate source of our reaction, not their action or inaction. We apologize for our general distress and our particular animosity.
We may also make a symbolic offer of goodwill. We may make a request or invitation. We may make a promise (in exceptional cases).
We are primarily interested in their comprehension of the basic details of our apology. We are not expecting anything from them and we are not groveling. We may withdraw from interaction.
Usually, there is no stressing of anything that we owe them or that they owe us. The communication of the apology is ideally distinct from any other “negotiations” and, until the apology is completed (with a sense that the other has experienced relief of any concerns about the past condemnation), other communications may be halted.
There is much more to the issue of introspection. What is above is simply a general framework for additional exploration.The issue of exactly how the masses are programmed with specific social anxieties and hysterias can be addressed next (unless there is an immediate interest for mentoring first). Mentoring, briefly stated, is the practice of introspection with the assistance of one or more other people who are competent enough in the practice of introspection to increase the efficiency and benefits of introspection for someone else.
What would paradise be like? What words come to mind? How would you describe the experience that is most attractive to you… even inspiring?
We might think of momentary satisfaction. We have already experienced moments of distinct satisfaction, such as joy, pleasure, ecstasy, or euphoria.
However, the word paradise is not just about occasionally attaining a temporary high. We already know what it is like to experience temporary highs. Is there anything even more attractive than another occasional high?
We also may experience attraction to the idea of lasting relief from certain terrifying realities. If you have experienced terror, then you can understand the appeal of the idea of a permanent relief from terror.
Maybe we have been terrified of poverty or war, so we got intrigued by apolitical campaign about achieving global peace or even support a political war on poverty in the hopes of getting eternal prosperity. However, after thousands of years of peace-keeping armies and taxes to combat poverty, the peace-keeping armies keep doing violence and people who are struggling to survive keep getting targeted by cops and tax collectors and bomber pilots.
We can distract ourselves from the reality that there are systems that exist to conduct large-scale operations of violence among groups of humans, but we still know the reality. Somewhere, there is someone who is terrified of a particular government. Maybe we are thankful that those people are terrified of our own government, but the reality of terror is still obvious. We still know that somewhere there is someone worried about how they are going to keep the tax collection court from sending armed soldiers to evict them and take over their property in the name of some distant government treasury.
Governments are operations of terror. In order to terrify other people in to chronic anxiety, governments repeatedly publicize certain terrifying aspects of their operations, like when they drop atomic bombs on some civilians and confine other civilians behind barbed wire fences and guard towers in “correctional” prisons and ethnic minority reservations.
While some of us may think of governments as possible saviors that offer a final solution to terrifying realities, other people think of governments as just another terrifying reality, similar to earthquakes and tornadoes. Some people want a government that will free them from anxiety. Others want freedom from anxiety about a particular government.
However what all of those people have in common is that they all experience anxiety. In fact, many of them anxiously await a government that will free them from anxiety about some of other form of government (some policy or politician or party). They donate money and time to promoting a government-provided salvation to government-related anxieties.
However, before there were any governments, there was still anxiety. Further,even if all governments suddenly ceased to function, that would not end anxiety. What is the real source of anxiety… much more ancient than the existence of organized government? What is it that really motivates people tobe interested in conceiving of a future paradise? From what reality do we really seek relief?
There is another obvious detail that we can ignore but we cannot deny, which is that we throughout our lives are repeatedly exposed to the reality of death. Plants live and die. We are exposed to death in stories and news reports. Eventually,people we know die. We pass by hospitals and mortuaries and even graveyards that are filled with human corpses. Over and over, we are reminded of the reality of death.
Many people are so anxious about their own death that they do ignore the reality of it, distracting themselves from any idea of their own death. Maybe they will pre-occupy themselves with condemning a particular government
However, what if you imagined complete freedom from any anxiety about dying?What if everything about dying was something that you could accept without any anxiety? If we are terrified of anxiety, then we naturally would reflexively attempt to avoid any topic that terrifies us.
The process of dying can involve pain. What if you were totally free of any anxiety about pain? In fact, what if the neurological production of a pain sensation is an expression of pre-existing anxiety? What is pain except a signal of anxiety about a wound? The wound may not be painful by itself… but once someone sees the wound, suddenly they may experience pain. Pain is a signal generated by the brain.
What exactly does pain signal? Pain signals anxiety. That is not “a mistake.”That is the neurological purpose of pain signals.
So, back to the specific issue of anxiety about death, some governing systems publicize stories about a heavenly after-life that not everyone will get to access. It is a reward for those who are most obedient to a particular set of values publicized by that system.
For instance, when Vikings soldiers were preparing to go to war, the high priests would indoctrinate them with stories of an eternal after-life. Those valiant heroes who boldly charge in to combat and draw first blood from the enemy would be selected after their death by sexy virgin angels called Valkyries who would take them to an eternal after-life of pleasure.
These stories were very good for morale. Some groups of soldiers were told these stories in their training and other groups of soldiers were not told these stories. The young soldiers who were first thoroughly traumatized in military training camps and then instructed with these stories were recognized by the high priests to be more effective as infantry. So, the stories became popular.
Young boys long before being drafted in to the armies were told these stories of how to get in to heaven. Further, they were also told stories of eternal torture in hell for those who did not conform to the behaviors indicated to them by Santa Claus.
Some might ask if these stories were in any way deceptive? Did some of the military officers doubt the accuracy of the stories, yet still tell those stories?
Others might say that military officers should not use deception or indoctrination. However, the reality is that deception and indoctrination exist.
In fact, only people who have been thoroughly indoctrinated would ever say “militaryofficers should never use deception.” If people have been traumatized thoroughly and then conditioned to reflexively condemn deception as “always wrong,”then they are simply displaying their obedience to the indoctrinated dogmas when they publicize their condemnations.
Which aspects of reality do birds condemn? Do birds condemn certain other birds for parroting the sounds of a mockingbird? Do birds say “their deception gives them an advantage in their effectiveness as hunters and if we refuse to use a particular method because of chronic tension about being punished if we use it,then the advantages of that method are unfair. We protest the fact that those other birds use methods that are more effective than ours! Our methods should be more effective. Isn’t there a politician who will at least promise us apolitical solution that can make our method more effective (or make the method that we refuse to use less effective)?”
What is the best way for governments to conduct their operations of terror? Different people will have different opinions about the issue. Generally speaking, people are often happy to ignore any operations of terror that benefit them, such as tax systems that provide free child care for their children through public schooling. If the vast majority of the income from the tax systems is used for other purposes besides providing free childcare, that is simply not relevant to most people.
As long as people perceive (accurately or not) that they are benefiting from an operation of organized terror, they tend not to condemn it. However, once people begin to feel threatened, there is a predictable coping mechanism which can be observed in thousands of cases.
Over and over, threatened people begin to criticize some government for bullying and intimidation. They condemn a particular foreign government. They condemn a particular party or individual. They condemn isolated cases of corruption.
Why? Condemning isolated cases of injustice is a coping mechanism to distract them from the simplicity of the nature of all governing systems. Governments are violent and terrifying. They systematically redistribute access to resources inequitably, benefiting certain special interest groups at the expense of certain groups of human resources (such as in colonized territories that have been recently liberated).
“We need a more honest government that is less deceptive. We also need a more honest currency system that is less biased.”
However, what is the purpose of using violence to create a currency system except for the systematic inequitable redistribution of resources? Of course some army will form a legal system and then the legal system will invent some debts owed to the legal system by the human resources. This system of extortion can be monopolized in a particular geographic area and called “legitimate taxation.”
The loyalists paint little shapes on ink on to signs and then parade down the street chanting that “We need political reforms to permanently bring us a better reality that fits with the presumptions that we were programmed to worship in free public training schools. We were repeatedly rewarded with social validation in school for repeating the slogans and values of the indoctrination system. Everyone should congratulate us on our loyalty and patriotism and then join us in our heroic parade. By the way, why are there so many hysterical people who oppose our favorite reforms and instead promote some other reforms as if those reforms were their only relief from hysteria about the eternal tortures that they were trained are waiting them for their sinful nature? How can those people be so naïve and so hysterical and so antagonistic toward the ideals that everyone that I like worships religiously?”
Many people are easily insulted, which means easily reminded of shames and terrors that they pretend not to have. Some people are virtually impossible to privately insult. If there is no credible sense of tangible injury or detriment to their interests, then the opinions of strangers may be of no special concern to them.
So, what is paradise? Paradise involves a harmony between natural instincts conditioning.
There can be respect for social conditioning and social ideals, yet also a respect for all natural instincts (rather than the condemnations programmed through social conditioning). In other words, there can be self-respect and grace… in contrast to the typical chronic physical tensions to totally avoid the display of any emotions labeled “negative” or “sinful.”
What are the typical instincts of all living creatures (even plants)? Basic instincts include the instinct for survival, for reproduction, and for adaptive superiority. Many organisms in a species may survive to sexual maturity and successfully reproduce. However, some organisms will thrive more than others.In the case of animals, some bloodlines will falter and disappear while others will expand.
Some groups of humans may excel in the use of language and even organize systems for military cooperation. They may establish systems for cultivating obedient soldiers, for developing superior military technology and protocols,and so on. Empires may form.
Within these empires, certain individuals and families may experience notably above average benefits. They may lobby for governments to benefit their economic interests. They may lobby for governments to burden their competitors with complex tax laws, prohibitive licensure requirements, or even criminal penalties to promote monopolies for their most lucrative operations.
What if paradise is not only for after the death of a physical body? Paradise could be a state of respect for one’s own patterns of activity. If I am most experienced with certain kinds of social interactions(certain social dynamics), that could be useful to accurately assess as I go about my life of recognizing my instinctual interests and promoting them.
If I lack certain skills that I may value and that other people may have, that may be useful to know. Maybe I form a lasting partnership with one or more of them. Or, maybe I form a temporary alliance (like when I pay someone else to fly an airplane to a destination where I would like to go… or where I would like an item or piece of mail to be transported).
For someone who is already in paradise, do they need to involve themselves in political reform movements to bring a particular government closer toward certain ideological slogans? They might choose to invest their time in that way, but a pre-occupation with pretending not to have any anxiety can be exhausting to the point of blindness. If I am not terrified of anxiety, then I do not have to agonize over how to prevent it. If I simply accept that anxiety and stress and chronic tension are realities that some people may experience, I can respect all experiences.
What is the best way for a propagandist in a military empire to create their systems of indoctrination and public relations? How can the attention of the masses be reliably governed/ programmed? How can their interpretations and perceptions be reliably governed/programmed? How can their behavioral responses to their programmed perceptions be best governed? What is the best way for an empire to promote obedient sacrifice by the human resources?
Paradise could include relief from habits of programmed guilt (which is the behavior of linguistic self-condemnation in an internalized dialogue about distress and safety, as in an “attack” by anxious panics of hysterical idealism, like what a Freudian psychiatrist might call a massive “super-ego” of moralizing, perfectionist, crippling, paralyzing self-criticism,). The most lasting relief could involve clarity about how such habits have been systematically programmed in to the masses of all modern cultures.
Personal economic stability (“thriving”) could contribute to a relaxing of internalized tensions and chronic pretenses. Pretenses can involve tension.Lasting release of chronic tension can involve a dissolving of unexamined habits of social pretense (such as displayed self-condemnation to present an absence of anxiety by distracting from one’s own hysteria through condemning the hysteria of others).
What is the best way to promote lasting personal economic stability? Condemning the nature of a monetary system tends to correspond with a naïve idealism about“not needing money to thrive.”
Do you need money to survive? Relative to breathing, money is not absolutely required. However, to condemn others for valuing money (and what money can buy)… could be a hysterical loyalty to programmed ideals that serve to emotionally cripple the masses of human resources in regard to how they relate to money and wealth within an empire.
On the other hand, any popular obsession with money as the “ticket to paradise”certainly might be targeted with some skepticism. Hoarding money does not itself produce introspective clarity. However, a steady flow of sufficient passive income might contribute to a relaxing of chronic pretenses and a release of habitual momentums of hysterical self-attack panics.
One can respect the religions of guilt and their mass-marketed curses. One can respect the innovative witchcraft with which the masses are programmed to be paranoid and hysterical about being possessed by demonic entities such as stage3 cancer of the tumor, type 8 hyperglycemic diabetes, possession of the abdominal intestines by bad cholesterol bacteria, uneasy anxiety stressed dis-ease syndrome disorder, delusional naivete, viral hypertension, imaginary hyperventilation, cardiopathic arthritis of the tongue, post-natal hypothyroidism, and of course incurable hypochondria.
One can respect that the masses reliably do worship those demons. That is what they are trained to do through indoctrination systems that disproportionately benefit the medical industry (which is the purpose of all advertising and marketing).
The indoctrination can be very effective. The worship of the selected demons can be wildly popular.
So, perhaps I do not need to bring everyone to paradise for me to experience paradise.That idea could be just part of another religion of crippling guilt.
By the way, paradise is a word that has the same historical roots as the word “park”and the word “garden.” When we talk about the paradise of Eden, the word paradise refers to an area isolated by a boundary, especially a wall. The word paradise,in its ancient form, can be used interchangeably with garden or park or even sanctuary(such as a wildlife sanctuary or a hunting reserve belonging to a local king or warlord).
Do you value lasting relief from the programmed habits of hysterical inattentiveness to language? If so, I know a politician that promises eternal salvation from that terrifying problem for just a modest increase in your tax rate. However,do not be deceived by the hypnotic bait of that political party, for it is the party that has a monopoly on dishonesty.
The only way for you to enter paradise is to participate in a proper ritualc elebrating your Eternal Sovereignty (and your eventual conditional independence from the influence of any empire or organized religion). Fortunately, I was personally authorized to perform that ritual by the God of the Latter-Day Saint Nicolaus of the Virginal Valkyries. Of course, your participation is entirely voluntary and, if you are interested to the point of an agonizing social anxiety, then let me know immediately and we will schedule your very own ritual (in exchange for a small donation in the form of certain evil currencies of certain evil governments). Furthermore, it is my oath-sworn duty to warn you that any failure on your part to submit to the ritual celebration of your Eternal Sovereignty will be used against you in a court of final judgment and damnation, subjecting you to eternal tortures involving repeated verbal condemnation by 666 very self-righteous birds.
I admit that I was somewhat naive in the past, perhaps because of the fact that I started out life so very young. For instance, I believed in Santa Claus. I even believed that if a licensed physician said something, then as long as my parents believed it, I also presumed that it must be true.
That was my simple perception… until eventually I heard of the idea of “getting a second opinion.” Should I be offended by this suggestion that if you consult a variety of physicians, some of them might have more than one way of measuring health and of understanding various symptoms? Exactly how offended should I be if someone disagrees with something my own physician said (such as my own physician at a later time)?
And what about this issue of specialization? It was as if some physicians had more expertise in some areas than in other areas! This whole issue of whom to trust was getting rather complicated.
I later learned that most physicians did not personally do a lot of research. They might read several journals each year, but how many clinical trials did they personally participate in?
This all got very serious for me sometime around the late 20th century (perhaps in the 1980s). One of the great paranoias that I was trained to have at that time was in relation to cancer. Cancer was very bad. Cancer was very frightening.
But what exactly was cancer? A decade ago, I might have told you that it was the cause of a certain type of illness. I could list a few people that I would say “cancer killed.”
However, cancer is a label for an effect. It is not a cause. It is just a label for an effect. It is not a living entity (a demon) that possesses certain organisms and attacks them and spreads through them like a parasitic infestation.
While many people worship cancer as a demon that has power over them, I eventually considered such religions to be delusional and hysterical. I considered habitual statements like “your cancer is killing you” to be mindless curses invoked in rituals of witchcraft called “the practice of medicine.”
I was not emotionally triggered by the issue of cancer. I noticed that some people were. However, I personally did not suffer from cancer. No one close to me was possessed by the demon of cancer and then “abducted by mortality.”
So, as I listened to a variety of people talk about cancer, I noticed some wide variations in how they related to that word. Not everyone worshiped it as a powerful demon. Some people related to it as merely a predictable effect. In other words, some people demonstrated a scientific perspective on cancer, even logic and intelligence.
For instance, some people talked about how cancer rates changed suddenly in a particular area right after a nuclear explosion. They spoke of measured data, not just presumptive speculations made with no respect for language. (For the grammar police among you, I mean whether the word cancer should be treated as an active, causal entity by using the word cancer with a transitive verb).
Other people talked about cancer as a possible effect of smoking a certain amount of cigarettes. Was there really a connection between specific behaviors and possession by the demon of cancer?
Some people (such as the Center for Disease Control) talked about a specific type of cancer called skin cancer and how different races of people had differing levels of vulnerability to skin cancer (or at least different rates of incidence). Hispanics were several times more vulnerable than Asians or Africans. White people were several times more vulnerable than Hispanics. Further, the skin of white males was demonically possessed by cancer significantly more frequently than the skin of white females. Was it possible that there both behavioral factors as well as genetic predispositions?
I noticed that different people spoke very differently about how easy or challenging it would be to produce the effect called cancer (as well as to stop producing that effect). To some, cancer was very mysterious yet not very important. To others, cancer was something that they were personally motivated to research and understand.
So, the issue came to my attention that some people are more interested in a particular subject (than most people) and so they get more expertise and more precision. Others lack a devoted, calm personal interest (and have only a hysterical interest or only a casual interest) and so perhaps they just learn a popular protocol from a medical school and carry on their business of treating cancer patients as they were programmed to do (and rewarded for doing).
I noticed that various people used words like “safe and effective” in regard to various treatment protocols. Some were so interested in these issues that they cited legitimate research or even conducted their own rigorous measurements. Note that when I say legitimate research, I mean research that is credible scientifically such that there is no logical controversy about it.
I noticed that there were controversies among licensed physicians about whether certain treatment protocols were safe and effective. Some of the disagreements seemed to be over what exactly was meant by the word “safe.”
I reviewed the terminology used by the US government’s Department of Health and Human Services. A publication of theirs stated that “On October 1, 1988… the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP) was established to… [provide] compensation to people found to be injured by certain vaccines.”
I learned that in over 4,000 cases a total of over $3 billion dollars had been paid by the US government on behalf of the vaccine industry, which prior to 1988 was legally liable for the injuries determined to be caused by vaccines. Other claims were rejected, such as allegations of a facial deformation caused in Beyonce, pictured above, after taking a skin cancer vaccine that made her in to a white male.
Anyways, I was curious about why this program did not have more publicity, given that large segments of public school curriculums are dictated by federal authorities. Why was there so much hysteria promoted about “the fatal effects of cancer” (which is bad grammar if cancer is an effect rather than a cause)? For every 100,000 white males, 4.3 of them are murdered by cancer each year!
Why was there so little paranoia promoted about the apparent dangers of vaccines? How interested should I even be?
Ultimately, my curiosity was only so strong. Perhaps the same lobbyists that in the 1980s persuaded the US government to transfer liability from the vaccine industry to the US government also did not want the budget for publicizing that compensation program to be more than $10,000 or $20,000 per year. I was satisfied by that explanation and moved on to other issues of greater interest to me.
As for the quotations in the original image, the reality is that in all social units, the interests / needs of the social unit as a whole may be more powerful than the interests / needs of an individual. In the obvious case of soldiers, they are not being sent to war in order to promote their personal safety. A mother running in to a burning house to save a child (or a pet) is also not thinking of her own personal safety as the top priority.
Just as individuals (or groups) are frequently sacrificed in the interests of “the greater good,” it is also true that some people get very special privileges. For instance, the US President has the legal right to overturn criminal convictions made in the US.
Bill Clinton pardoned Marc Rich of convictions for an enormous amount of tax evasion as I recall (among other felonies bordering on treason). Before that, Caspar Weinberger (Ronald Reagan’s secretary of defense) was pardoned before his trial (in order to keep certain information secret, apparently). Oliver North was only pardoned after his convictions.
As for the specific issue of ethnic cleansing, if it is so “bad,” then why did the US do it to the natives here? Why did the Israelites (under the direction of Moses, as recorded in the Book of Numbers) massacre almost the entire population of the Midianites?
Ethnic cleansing is one thing that can happen. Those who are ashamed of their own favorite government’s history of ethnic cleansing (such as the US, especially in the 19th century) may cope with the shame by directing their attention at one or two isolated cases of ethnic cleansing in the distant past. We can focus on the “heroism” of our government for combating ethnic cleansing, such as by dropping atomic bombs on the Japs in Hiroshima or Nagasaki. Why? Because the Japs were conducting military operations of “ethnic cleansing,” which is very bad and so the world must be cleansed of those evil ethnic cleansers.
These 3 questions below could be asked from calm curiosity. In that case, the questions simply express open-mindedness.
However, when there is a background of distress (anxiety), the same questions can be used to forms dilemmas (rather than to launch exploration and brainstorming). After creating a dilemma of a rigid “either/or” pre-occupation, that fixation is the foundation that can be built on to eventually spark an avalanche of agonizing. After we review these 3 questions briefly, we will then explore the root issue underneath all 3 common forms of distressed agonizing.
What I should do?
Who should I trust?
How I should be?
Here, we could review some specific patterns of how people use those kinds of questions to cultivate distress. The short version is that they rehearse “fantasy” scenarios that frighten them.
(Note that the “fantasy” scenarios typically begin by rehearsing actual memories that trigger a distressed “brainstorming.” I use the term “fantasy” scenarios because they are not being directly observed in that moment, but are being pondered or recalled or invented. This can be a very frightening way of brainstorming.)
So, rehearsing the scenarios that are frightening then justifies a state of near-paralysis (or explosive hysterias). In an ideal circumstance, that can lead to a very isolated “cry for help” toward someone perceived to be capable of helping and willing to help discretely.
In moderate distress, there will need to be an expectation of receiving help before someone will display their distress signal. Because that is often not the case, the distress can be crippling.
However, in the most extreme distress, the typical resistance to drawing attention will be irrelevant. Help will be directly and explicitly invited from most any possible source of assistance.
Am I safe?
If someone is in distress, then their perception is that they either are not safe or might not be safe and cannot easily find out if they are safe. That creates an urgent dilemma.
So, in an extreme case of perceived threat, they do not perceive fleeing or fighting as attractive methods for coping with the perceived threat. Instead of the more active responses of fight or flight, they freeze and fake (which are relatively passive responses to a possible threat).
The specific kind of faking includes an attempt to block the display of facial expressions and gestures that could be interpreted as signalling distress. That requires physical tension. That tension can be held chronically (locked in).
They maintain the frozen physical state of locked muscular tensions. They may cling to their familiar routine and habits (so as not to do anything unusual that might draw unsafe attention to them). Not only do they “lock in” their own routine, but they also may begin to lean toward activities that are extremely common within their social setting. They seek to blend in. They hide not by being literally invisible, but by being as unremarkable as possible.
That naturally leads to disappointment with the results of the familiar methods, but when there is a reflexive suppression of the display of all disappointment, that means no talking about it directly. Instead, in moderate states of distress, people tend to keep doing the same old habits that used to work effectively. They may complain that they are not getting the results they expected or they may complain that they are getting the results that they expected, but they just do not value those results as much anymore.
Before they would say anything so direct and clear, they will likely experience frustration. The bigger the chronic tension or pretense in the background, the bigger the frustration will need to get in order for them to independently recognize the real source of the dilemma.
In many cases, people may seem blind to their own familiar presumptions as being presumptive. They are creating dilemmas and distress out of habit (inattentively). They are not calm and clear. They are not focused.
They are approaching panic, but hiding it. They are desperate. The root of desperation is despair, as in hopelessness. Instead of hope, they may be growing a terror.
Again, they are not just making careful, calm measurements of safety. They are operating from distressed presumptions of idealism. They are preserving their idealism at the expense of admitting that any of their presumptions might be presumptive. They may furiously dismiss the idea that they have any participation in
They may attack suggestions that they have authority as threatening. They may deny that their panic attacks involve any habitual interpretations or practices.
Instead of thinking about how to assess their own methods and revise them, they think about how to retreat from distress. Retreating certainly may be favorable and satisfying on occasion.
However, in actuality, there may be no dilemma between either retreating from some trigger (such as a person or a job) or changing one’s own methods. Often, people simply brainstorm about how to best flee (while maintaining the “holding pattern” of maintaining familiar routines). Or, people may crumble in to shameful agonizing over identifying the perfect method before taking any new action.
Again, either of those extreme responses could be valuable in a particular circumstance. But they often are ineffective.
Plus, when there is a distress and a chronic tension to hide the distress, then people may not relax on their own to the point of exploring how they can BOTH alter their own thought process AND explore moderate levels of withdrawing (rather than total retreat). When a possible threat is sensed, then caution can be increased, momentum can be interrupted, pace can be slowed, and more precise assessments of safety can be made (including by people considered unusually perceptive). Further, distress can be admitted and relaxation can be targeted as a possible priority.
So, we can avoid the dilemma of “either this is a problem caused solely by my own misinterpretation or this is a problem solely of external factors.” Maybe there is a problem and maybe not. Maybe it involves some degree of actual threat. Maybe it involves some degree of misinterpretation and invented distress.
The value of inventing stresses
Why would people ever invent distress? Inventing justifications for stress can be an effective method for testing other people in regard to their willingness and ability to handle stress (like stress in general or a particular kind of stress).
Do you value knowing how specific other people respond to stress? Then expose them to some stress! (Exactly how much feedback do you want to receive?)
If the stress is a stress that you make up, that may be ideal because then there is no real trigger for stress, but just an invented stress for you to display to them (as an over-reaction, even if sincere). You can practice displaying stress without any actual cause for stress being present. You may even know that the whole thing is a pretense.
However, willingness to process stress is not the same as ability. Some people may be very willing to assist others with processing stress (whether specific other people or absolutely anyone). Sincerity is no guarantee of effectiveness.
Maybe a person is eager to assist anyone with process stress because the prospective savior wants to compensate for a sense that they need some justification for existing (like their mere existence is somehow a problem or a crime). Or, maybe they do not have a savior complex of massive, heroic reforms.
Perhaps they are simply willing to assist specific others in order to promote specific priorities for them. Maybe they are cultivating partners and allies. Maybe they are creating bonds and networks. Or, maybe they are just professionals at managing stress and are earning a salary or an hourly fee.
Note that professional success is typically measured simply by cash profits. However, a professional may be extremely successful financially without being unusually effective.
Maybe they are quite happy in their own lives or maybe not. Maybe they are consistently effective with others and maybe not.
The various social valuations of stress management skills
In some circumstances, life may be orderly and stable such handling stress is rarely a challenge. Maybe only the poorest or least mature people have an interest in managing stress better.
In other conditions, there may be sudden, large changes for entire populations of people and then the ability to handle stress well is a rare and precious skill. Immense advantages may be accessible through a skillful and perceptive approach to managing stress.
Further, in conditions of lasting instability, handling stress well may be a very common focus because it is essential. Everyone may be interested and only those capable of mastering stress will survive.
Those different phases can form a cycle. Out of instability, order forms. Then order stabilizes. Then order destabilizes. Moderate amounts of order may destabilize gradually. Rigid orders may rarely destabilize without sudden and massive disruptions.
It can be useful to recognize which stage of that cycle fits for your current circumstance (in terms of culture and economy). While predictions can be challenging, measurements may be easy to make.
If you know both what your own internal feedback is and know what the social reality is, then that perceptiveness can promote effectiveness. With that in mind, I like to make an analogy to sailing on a boat.
Sometimes, it is easier to adjust the sails than to change the direction of the wind. Also, it could be very useful to accurately assess the actual direction of the wind before adjusting the sails. Any familiar presumptions about how the wind should be may be obstacles to adaptiveness and effectiveness… unless they are recognized as being mere presumptions.
As for identifying the destination of value to you, that can also be an important issue. If that is not clear and yet your sails are up, you might value taking them down to reduce your speed (or even find a dock).
If only the world wouldn’t be so sad, I wouldn’t be so mad.
If only the world would love me more, I wouldn’t be so sore.
“So What’s wrong with the world today,” is what I used to say every morning.
Find a new complaint (or an old complaint)- something for me to hate
But don’t call me boring!
My life was all about making up for my life. (I’m so sorry.)
My time was all about making up for my crimes (at your party).
I didn’t mean to spoil everything.
(See I was only trying to spoil one thing.)
I figured I would try to test your love. (To see if you would crumble or condemn me.)
I just wanted to know if I should trust… The kind of person that I thought you’d been (but now I wonder if I pegged you wrong… All along.)
“So What’s new with the world today,” is what I could say in the morning.
I like the future cause it’s where I will learn
All the lessons that I need to return
What did you say about the past?
(Cause I forgot.)
What will you say about the last
day of your whole life (so far)?
What if many people are quite challenged by the unfamiliar primarily because they have had so much regularity in their time in public school (or similar settings)? They are not used to spontaneous learning. They are used to being instructed (and then repeating back whatever they are trained to repeat back in order to get social validation from the instructor for their conformity).
Do they listen with an open mind or are they suddenly scared and compulsively looking for justifications to dismiss the unfamiliar? Do they actively resist or attack unfamiliar ideas in order to preserve their comfort with their familiar but unexamined presumptions?
Of course, people who did not attend school can still display close-mindedness and hysterical panics. If their family and culture oppose curiosity as a presumed threat, then they will still flee from controversy or reactively attack unfamiliar ideas to avoid being faced with overwhelming evidence of their naivete.
However, less humble people may also attempt to hide their lack of real competence through arrogant antagonisms. They may be terrified of their blind naivete being revealed as blind naivete.
Are they expecting their teacher to reward them for their loyalty to their programmed blind presumptions? Are they condescending toward people who dare to voice skepticism toward their sacred, unexamined presumptions?
Or, are they relaxed enough to be open to intelligent questions? Do they value intelligent questioning of their own habitual presumptions (or even seek it out and pay for it)?
Who is brave enough to admit that they have been terrified of ideas that challenge familiar presumptions? Who is so terrified of criticism that they pretend they have never been naive and are now free of all conceptual presumptions?
It is one thing to advocate for a particular change of policy. It is quite another thing to hysterically panic in the face of the slightest controversy or any inquiry about the logical foundations of a particular conclusion.
(Below is a short sequence of comments. Mine is the one at the bottom.)
A body that lacks health reflects a mind that perceives innocence to be lacking. It’s not personal!
All material reasons for lack of health are only a distraction. Watch what’s being believed in you, and bodies will no longer be used to conceal your power and purpose.
Aloha, LS! Would you be willing to consider that even facts of life are temporary illusion?
Innocence is not lacking. It is that some add guilt-trips on top, like “I lack innocence which is causing my mouth to be painfully hot every time that I drink a very hot beverage.” That idealism may be delusional.
Why did one bee larvae get fed royal jelly and grow up to be the fertile queen? Her sisters are genetically identical but did not get fed royal jelly and did not become fertile. Why? Of course it is because trees who lack innocence must be punished by lightning.
What would say if I called that idea “a curse?” I can exaggerate it further:
“Over here is you and over there is your body which you can clearly see is covering your power, which is right here. As for your purpose, which is that small orange thing in the middle, it is being crippled by the evil of the shameful body because of the lack of innocence in the part of you way over there.” These ideas are personal and they are divisive (anti-holistic) in linguistically implying that “you” and “your body” are completely isolated, divorced “objects” (persons).
So, do the wings on the body of a bee conceal the purpose of the bee? Are there “uninnocent” pieces of bark on a tree that conceal the power of the rest of the tree?
Perhaps bodies CAN be “used” to *explore purpose and power. Bodies could *always be manifestations of power and purpose.
As for guilt, it is “a real perception.” When I have been scared that future punishments (or lack of rewards) can be expected AND that they would be the natural result of “personal” choices that I have “made,” then I can experience an internal message “from my brain” to signal a shift of focus called “guilt.”
Maybe guilt leads me to apologize. Maybe it leads me to flee. Maybe it leads me to lie or otherwise delay or minimize punishment.
“Either innocent or guilty” is just one possible linguistic model that I could *practice. Guilt is temporary and specific (and personal). Innocence is not personal.
States are groups of humans that govern or regulate other humans. In particular, a state is an organization that systematically redistributes specific forms of wealth through force.
Statists are those who habitually relate to life through the filters programmed by a state. The elite are those who either form states or direct the operations of existing states. Again, all states redistribute wealth from the statists (or other sources) to the elite.
The core activity of states is organized violence, such as the operations of invading militaries, domestic patrols, and international assassination teams. There are two primary forms of redistributing wealth through force: confiscation and various kinds of extortion. Of those two, extortion is often favored because when the source of the wealth (such as the taxpayers) are voluntarily contributing resources, there can be much greater efficiency and stability for the redistribution programs. A steady flow of wealth from the taxpayers to the states may be very appealing to the states. Also, occasional “liberations” of poorly-defended states can be the source of massive short-term surges of wealth (through confiscation).
Earlier, statists were defined as those who habitually relate to life through filters programmed by a state. Examples of such filters would be fixed ideals about certain patterns of activity as fundamentally right or wrong. Related to these isolated linguistic categories of “either right or wrong” is the labeling of specific emotions as fundamentally negative (as in horrific, crippling, or shameful).
(In regard to the above photo’s text):
What could be more ironic than being demeaning and hateful toward someone with the justification that they have been”being demeaning and hateful?”
Instead of relating to actual results as the primary measure of value, statists have been programmed to obsess over methods. In particular, certain methods are habitually identified as “wrong,” usually with the implication that the state itself does not use that method.
However, it is typical that states in fact are seeking to discourage the general public from using the particular methods that the state would value monopolizing. So, certain methods are publicized as forbidden because of some fantastic spiritual consequence, such as eternal tortures in an underground hell of fire.
Notably, the tortures performed by states, such as the Holy Roman Empire’s Holy Inquisition, are conspicuous in human history for their extremism. Slaves may be flogged to death by states (or with state protection for the torturers). Heretical prophets may be nailed to a cross and slowly and painfully executed in a public ritual of human sacrifice. Of course, there is a fluctuation between keeping the tortures of a particular state a secret (to avoid panicking the masses) and widely publicizing those methods to terrify the masses.
States promote idealism such as “equality is the desired outcome of the most righteous states.” However, the centralizing of power (the concentration of inequalities) is the central function of all states.
Certain distant states may be vilified as too violent or otherwise offensive relative to the idealism of particular aggressor state. After vilifying their target, the aggressor state can invade and occupy the target state (or at least destabilize a target state through political assassinations).
One famous ideal promoted by states is that “everyone should unconditionally love everyone else all the time.” This ideal is the source of tremendous shame, agonizing, resentment, and contempt. Typically, the statists will select a specific individual target to safely condemn (like from a very safe distance) as “failing to be the perfect perfectionist.” (Note that the targeting of individual “villains” closely parallels the model set by the state-regulated media and state-operated schools of vilifying select foreign states as unusually “offensive.”)
So, mainstream media can supply a steady stream of celebrity scandals for the public to enthusiastically practice their habitual practices of shaming. By encouraging the masses to consistently shame specific behaviors, that helps to discourage the public from calmly studying any of those behaviors (and certainly from experimenting with those behaviors).
Reform movements may be constantly peddled to the masses to “make our empire more holy.” The masses can fight over which trivial reforms to make while the state continues its operations of redistributing the wealth from targeted foreign states and of course from the entire domestic population of taxpayers or forced labor/ consigned soldiers.
What about the elite? If they do not focus on reforming the nearest state to make it more holy, what do they focus on instead?
All of them focus on advancing their own self-interests, which will be explored in the section titled “enlightened self-interest.” <link not yet active> The most powerful among them set up the “common core” curriculums to be presented to the masses (with rewards to encourage obedient compliance and unexamined repetition). Others conceive the next wave of political advances, then invent problems for which their favorite policy changes can be marketed as a solution.
For instance, if a new chemical has been developed which can impair the function of the liver, then how can it be marketed (or even subsidized or made mandatory)? To market a drug that impairs liver function, then some aspect of liver function must be demonized.
In the case of cholesterol, the masses are programmed to create a hysterical paranoia as if cholesterol was not an essential nutrient that every liver on the planet is specifically designed to manufacture. In order to “protect” the masses from the healthy functioning of the liver (which produces cholesterol), statin medications can be provided at whatever expense to the consumer.
The more hysterical the masses are in their worship of the idealism programmed with the support of the state, the greater is the potential for commercial profit. If there is outright panic about the liver’s production of cholesterol (or about cholesterol produced by the liver of some other organism and then consumed), then enormous prices can be received for drugs which efficiently impair liver function.
When there is a massive publicity campaign for an idea, do the common people question the core presumptions of that publicity campaign? Typically, select ideas have been repeatedly programmed to the masses in public schools (which we may presume to be highly credible), and then the masses have been rewarded for obediently repeating back the ideas on tests given in those same schools, and then the same ideas are again repeatedly frequently in various forms of media (which also may be presumed to be highly credible). In such cases of massive and coordinated publicity campaigns, the flimsiest “evidence” may go entirely unquestioned by the naive, trusting masses.
Even decades after all scientists in the core field recognize the value of cholesterol, medical doctors are still behaving in accord with the treatment protocols with which they were programmed in medical school (perhaps several decades ago). There may be open acceptance of the simple fact that healthy livers always increase cholesterol production to reverse moderate medical complications, but only among research scientists.
Medical doctors and the general public are not primarily interested in the consensus of research scientists. MDs are simply conducting their business as governed by the state which licenses them. The trusting public is, if properly panicked and hysterical, blindly obeying the directives of the blindly obedient MDs.
What is the job of the mainstream media? The media publicizes the scandals of those that are shameful according to the culture’s ideals. The media also publicizes the punishments of those who dare to rebel against the state. In the case of many denominations of the Christian religion, the central symbol of the religion is a cross or crucifix.
On the crucifix is the reminder of the violent power of the state: a holy rebel (who is presented by the religious institution as the ideal human or the holy role model) is shown nailed to wood. While most religious indoctrination might not be as obviously confusing as reading a few inches of legal statutes, the resulting experience among the loyal statists of the Holy Christian Empire is obvious enough: the terrified sincerity of self-righteousness, further resulting in crippling perfectionism, shame, agonizing, confusion, and of course hysterical argumentativeness and animosity toward the targeted enemies of the holy empire (as identified by alleged “credible sources”).