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?
I will begin by referencing “isolated insights,” which can then form a pattern of related insights. Eventually, I will bridge that topic to “superior living” (or insightful living… as distinct from a life with a few isolated adaptions that are insightful).
So, I was taught that suffering is an effect. It is something that can happen “to” anyone. Eventually, I discovered that it could also be an activity (or a way of relating to some detail of life).
As an example, there was once some hot food in a hot oven. I opened the oven to remove the food and I was startled by how hot it was. It burned me slightly.
Was that “suffering?” Or was that just pain and getting a burn?
Then, I stuck my whole arm in to the oven and said “who the fuck turned this oven to 400 degrees? That is WAY too hot. It should be 350! Doesn’t anyone read the god damn instructions anymore? You are the reason that my arm hairs are getting melted right now! How could you do this to me?!?!”
But a mirror covered in steam will make everything cloudy. A mirror that is bent will distort everything it reflects.
So, back to my example of a reaching in to a hot oven, what was so disturbing about the heat? Was it really the heat of the oven? What about when there is no longer any heat in that oven? What about if I remove my arm from the hot area?
Just removing the arm from the oven is not enough to end the verbal suffering. People can continue to suffer from something that happened minutes ago… Or even decades ago.
So, there is a possibility of salvation, the uprooting of all potential for suffering (ending the neurological context in which verbal suffering COULD develop). Further, there is the more accessible possibility of discontinuing a particular practice of suffering (about a specific idea). Note that we do not suffer from what happened. We suffer from ideas (as in fantasies or even delusions) ABOUT what happened (or about what MAY happen in the future).
Someone can communicate to me an alternative way of relating to something which is not “suffering that thing.” Maybe I previously organized a particular historical incident to be part of an ongoing narrative about being victimized.
I constructed a social persona around that narrative. I filtered my perceptions through that narrative. I selected what fits my narrative, ignoring everything else, plus inventing or distorting details in order to serve my narrative.
However, a victimhood narrative itself is not the problem. They can be silly or even hilarious. Believing a victimhood narrative sincerely (even desperately or hysterically) can be quite a problem though.
So, I cannot “remove” the history of ever having practiced a victimhood narrative and why would I want to? Is it “victimizing me,” too?
It is just a practice. When someone is in distress (or hysteria) they send a social signal of “help me,” and organizing a victimhood narrative is a typical way to do that. The narrative itself is not important (except if it temporarily is).
So, there are a few stages of “recovery” from a habit or addiction to victimhood narratives. First, recognize what verbal suffering is (as in a practice of hysterically relating to something from a victimhood narrative). Then, recognize that the verbal practice of suffering is optional.
Next, get help. Also, get the relevant help. People do not really need help with the oven “which has been victimizing me.” The demons that they worship may have no power beyond what they give them. But, it is fine for them to say “the hot oven has been victimizing me” to start a conversation, right? The purpose of any tantrum is to attract attention, so if it produces that result, the rest is trivia.
We do not need to remove the oven from the kitchen. We do not need to urgently pour buckets of ice in to the oven. Removing the arm from the oven is enough.
So, we can help each other to be alert to victimhood narratives as well as alert to alternative narratives (like “self-empowerment” and so on). However, there can be a real transition for people to go from hysterical victimhood to being humbly open about getting help with hysteria. If we do not have a well-developed perceptiveness about who to trust, then we also must develop it from experimentation. For one who is anxious about their lack of emotional stability being revealed or “taken advantage of,” then experimenting responsibly can seem terrifying….
Eventually, one instance of hysteria at a time, we can process through our inattentive use of language. We can develop attentiveness to language on our own (in seclusion) and together (in conversation).
We can offer to interrupt each other’s linguistic suffering rituals. We can request and invite help from each other (again, not from just anyone, but from those who are perceived to be appropriate).
We might even occasionally be wrong about who to entrust with what responsibility. All of that is part of the learning process. Through disappointment, we get motivated to develop in our selectiveness of who to entrust.
So, there is recognizing what suffering is, recognizing the common foundation of a victimhood narrative, then interrupting each specific instance of a victimhood narrative. Finally, after those three initial issues (or “noble truths”), there is living in a way that uproots the vulnerability to hysteria. We shift from the victimhood narrative as a primary narrative to a more creative, more effective narrative. We shift toward “mindful living” or “healthy living.”
That can involve several changes to how we use time and money and so on. Those go beyond occasional “helpful conversations” and “healthy communication.”
So, jumping over to the subject of neurochemistry (serotonin and so on), a psychiatric approach to someone who is in a house that is on fire would be to suppress their body’s ability to produce stress hormones like adrenalin (or whatever). Medicine of that kind just suppresses symptoms. It is a coping mechanism for temporary tolerance of an unhealthy environment.
“Oh, look, your blood pressure is too high. Let’s fix that problem!”
That is much more harmful than something like a “practice” of calm breathing. However, the use of toxic medications can be appropriate for battlefield emergencies (as well as for systematically profiting from the ignorance of the medical patients).
What would a more enlightened approach be? Consider why the blood pressure is high. If your home is on fire, could that trigger a HEALTHY rise in blood pressure to levels that indicate an UNHEALTHY lifestyle or living condition?
So, a more enlightened approach would be “do NOT suppress the high blood pressure or the adrenalin. First, exit the building that is on fire (or at least remove your arm from out of the hot oven). Then, USE that adrenalin to PUT OUT THE FIRE.”
Does the heart need to pump lots of blood to the “fight or flight” muscles? If so, help it to do so well. If not, then alter the process that is sending those signals to increase the pumping.
Rather than mess up the receptors for the signals or block the transmission of the signals (which are both popular interventions for high blood pressure, by the way), we can respect that the brain is the source of those signals. Improve the brain’s ability to accurately identify real dangers as well as to “downgrade from high alert to calm” (when appropriate).
It is not ideal (from a health perspective) to numb the brain (to make it unable to produce stress hormones). Stress is not the problem. Stressors (like having an arm in a hot oven) are the problem.
Stress hormones are part of the solution. Much of modern commercial medicine is about interfering with the natural solution (although that can produce long-term customers / prescription drug addicts and thus lots of profits).
What is a good way to create a drug addict? Invalidate their body’s natural response of anxiety and tell them that anxiety is a shameful problem which can be “permanently” fixed simply by taking $14 of drugs twice a day for the rest of their life.
Is it profitable to assist people in RESOLVING an individual cause of stress or anxiety? Generally, that is not as profitable as making them in to a drug addict.
Is it profitable to assist people in relieving their underlying vulnerability to distress and shame and hysteria? Generally, it is much more profitable to promote an emotional instability in the general population that is widespread and crippling. In particular, for those who conduct the business of government wealth extraction, it is important to keep the overall morale of the taxpayers very low (and their desperate loyalty to delusions about political salvation very high).
However, there may be cases in which I am interested in the emotional health of specific people. Plus, I may value cultivating a network of people who are all relatively stable and mature (rather than relatively hysterical).
When I was a young child, my brother and I liked to climb trees. One morning, we were chasing each other around the house and wrestling. Our mother heard us giggling and came in the room to scold us, saying “How many times have I told you not to climb on the furniture?”
My younger brother held up two fingers and said, “so far today, that is the second time.” However, he was just saying that out of anxiety. It was really the first time she had told us that today. The time before that was yesterday afternoon, so it was actually just once so far today.
I whined, “but we LOVE to climb things! Like we love to climb that one tree in grandpa’s yard that has the big round fruit on it.”
“No, we do NOT,” my younger brother protested, pointing his finger at me. “the tree that I love to climb is the one that is next to the back door and does not have any leaves on it. THAT is my favorite one, not the other one.”
Mom said “you both are talking about the same tree. the one next to the back door is the one that has big round fruit, plus the dark leaves and little white flowers, remember?”
“NO,” my little brother said, stomping the ground as he spoke. “My favorite one does NOT have any leaves. Trees that have leaves can be too hard to climb and make me itch. I like climbing trees with no leaves and no flowers and no fruit. How many times do I have to TELL you this?”
I took that opportunity to hold up two fingers and say, “so far today, that is the second time.” As I said that, I was already expecting my mom to respond with this: “oh, don’t be like your grandfather.”
However, I did not expect this: my brother punched me in the shoulder and said, “no, that was the first time today. The other time was yesterday. You are such a liar!”
Ignoring my brother, my mom then said, in exactly the way that I expected to her to say it, “oh, don’t be like your grandfather.” Then after a moment she did turn to my brother and say, “if you hit your brother again, I will spank you. Is that what what you want?”
He whispered, “no, mommy,” and then made a really stupid face that he seemed to think would help his cause. Then she turned away and he immediately punched me again.
I said to her, “wait, isn’t it kind of stereo critical of you to threaten him with violence for being violent? After all, you don’t want me to punch him in retaliation for punching me, right?”
“RIGHT,” my little brother agreed. “You better not punch me back or else I will BITE you!”
Mother suddenly turned back toward us, grabbed my little brother’s shoulder, and harshly said to him “here is what you WILL do.” Then her voice suddenly got soothing as she continued: “You will go find a pair of your CLEAN socks and bring them to me right now.”
He made a fist, then launched his arm straight up in the air and said “YES!” Then her turned to her and said, “Where are we going?”
“I will tell you after you bring me two clean socks,” our mother said. “Oh, and remember they need to match, okay? As for you, Mr. Stereocritical….”
Then she sat down and faced me. She gave me that look. You know the one I mean.
“First of all, the word stereocritical is your own creation. You were combining stereotypical with hypocritical,” she said.
My little brother ran in to the room holding two socks and said “do these match?”
Mom said “no, and I specifically said CLEAN socks.”
Mom focused on me again and continued: “so, the word Stereotypical means fitting some kind of presumption, though the presumption may or may not be accurate. Stereotypes are often based on something real but which has then been stretched far past reality.”
“The word hypocritical can be very tricky. It means making a criticism while being unaware that the same criticism applies to you. It would be like saying that no people should wear socks while wearing socks. If you are person wearing socks, then it is hypocritical to say that no person should wear socks, right?”
“Uh huh,” I said. In fact, I was mostly waiting for a break to ask her where we were going.
Apparently, She totally ignored the question that I had not asked and just kept going on about the sock thing: “But if your brother tells you that you cannot wear his socks, that is just a fact. He can wear them and you can not. Why not?”
“They’re too small for my feet. I get it. Anyway, where are we going?”
She continued ignoring my question even after I had said it out loud. “So it is just a fact that he can wear those socks and you cannot. That is a contrast. So, if I threaten your brother with violence, that is just a threat, right?”
If she can ignore my question, I can ignore hers. See if you can slide THAT sock on your foot!
“If your brother punches you,” she said while punching me to demonstrate, “of course you are ABLE to punch him back. But that is about all you can do. Your main advantage over him is you are bigger. I am also bigger, but it is not just my size that makes my threat powerful.”
“Right, because you are the mother. Like I said, I get it,” I said. “So, where are we going?”
“And when I ask you a question, you will answer it,” she said. “When you ask me a question to interrupt what I was saying, I might ignore it, right?”
I said nothing. She asked me a question and I intentionally said NOTHING. Ha!
“So when I told your brother that I would punish him with violence if he was violent, that was ironic. But it was actually not hypocritical. Why not?”
Now right here I should tell you that when she gives me that particular look, I know that the conversation is not going to be easily avoided. As a child, I did not have the influence to escape from it. I could get up and walk out of the room, but she would just follow me. Yes, this is what I was thinking about at the time. So, to hide the fact that I had forgotten her question, I said, “Could you rephrase the question, please?”
She said, “sure. I will make it even simpler for you. If I say that people should not be violent, but then threaten to be violent against anyone who is violent, would that be hypocritical or merely ironic?”
“Hypocritical,” I said. “You are a person, so the standard that you presented also applies to you.”
“Right,” she said. “But if a ruler named Moses says to his slaves that slaves are not allowed to carry a gun or else his soldiers will shoot the slaves, is that ironic or hypocritical?”
“Well, that would just be ironic,” I said, “because Moses is not one of the unarmed slaves who are being regulated by the armed troops. Plus, it is also ironic to use that example of Moses because he is the one who was against slavery and led slaves to freedom.”
“What did he do after that,” mom asked?
“After what,” I responded?
“What did Moses do after he led the slaves to freedom,” she said?
“I’m not sure,” I said.
“And did you say that he was against slavery,” she asked?
“Of course,” I said. “Everyone knows that!”
“Does your brother know that,” she asked?
“Do I know what? And what about these socks,” my brother said?
“Yes, those are clean and they match. Now sit down and put those socks on,” she said.
“Are you saying that Moses was not against slavery,” I asked my mom?
“Are you saying that he was,” she replied?
“Wasn’t he,” I said?
“Was he,” she said?
“Just tell him the answer, mom. I don’t think she knows,” said my little brother.
“Long after Moses led the slaves out of Egypt, those former slaves were sent by Moses to invade another Semitic tribe called the Midianites. The army that Moses commanded massacred all of the midianites except for 24,000 that were captured and enslaved,” she said.
“For real,” I asked?
“Well, at least that is what it says in the bible and other ancient documents,” she answered.
“So when Moses says not to kill, that is ironic but not hypocrisy, right,” I asked?
“He did not say not to kill,” mom said. “The command was not to murder. What’s the difference,” she asked me?
“So, murder is to kill without legal justification,” I said, “like killing in self-defense is legal.”
“Maybe or maybe not,” she said. “A slave cannot legally kill their master in self defense. So, the basic idea is to respect the issue of legal authorization of an act of killing. Or, there can be a legal ritual to criminalize a particular act of killing, like the killing of an endangered species or poaching. Do you know what poaching means,” she asked?
“Isn’t that hunting without a government permit,” I replied?
“Close enough,” she said. “So, governments have been performing public rituals of human sacrifice for thousands of years, plus engaging in assassinations and wars.”
“Killing is their business,” I said.
“And business is going good,” said my little brother! He had no idea at all what he was talking about.
“Also, criminalizing certain actions by the general public is the business of governments,” she added. “They criminalize things and then maybe sell licenses to do that thing. So they regulate killing and lots of other things. They regulate the activities of their own employees and of the occupied populations.”
“I have both socks on,” my little brother announced. “Where are we going?”
Mom said “Let’s go to grandpa’s and find out if your favorite tree is there or if it has been replaced by that other tree that has leaves.”
“Actually, didn’t grandpa recently say that he was going to cut down that tree,” I asked?
She squeezed my hand, then winked at me and said “I don’t remember him saying anything about that, but we can find out when we get there, right?”
“RIGHT,” said my little brother with enthusiasm.
That was when I realized that my mom was just using my brother’s interest in climbing that tree to get him in to the car. We were probably going to go shopping for groceries for an hour and then pop in at grandpa’s for a few minutes. I was impressed.
Anyway, about two hours later, we arrived at grandpa’s. That one tree was gone. My brother and I climbed some other trees instead.
Mom said, “isn’t it odd that you two were arguing about that tree earlier?”
“What tree,” said my brother?
Mom said,” the tree that has no leaves and yet also has leaves. Is it two different trees or the same tree, first without leaves and later with leaves, then without leaves again.”
“You’re weird. Anyway, there is no tree,” said my little brother. “It’s gone.”
“We probably just wanted to argue over something. Most Anything would do,” I suggested.
“NO,” said my little brother. “You’re such a big liar!”
Grandpa had been quietly listening to all of this and finally spoke up and asked, “so, what do you folks think of the presidential candidates?”
“Trump is an ass,” said my little brother.
Mom said, “do NOT use that word.”
“Trump or ass,” asked grandpa?
I said, “so some people argue about a tree as if that tree fundamentally has no leaves or fundamentally has leaves. But the nature of some trees is to grow leaves and then drop them.”
Grandpa said, “and some people argue about a political candidate like that person is fundamentally only one certain way (like however they presented themselves during their campaign). Their fans focus in on some issue that really triggers them with admiration. Their opponents focus on some issue that triggers repulsion in them. Everyone completely ignores all the issues except the ones that they fixate on.”
I said, “so, it’s kind of like they just want to argue over something and most anything will do, right?”
“Did you know that Moses was against killing and also against slavery,” my little brother asked Grandpa?
Grandpa said, “I heard that he was so against slavery that he once punished people who were not against slavery by arresting them, imprisoning them, putting them in chains and forcing them to work at whatever task he assigned, but he only allowed them to keep 50% of what they earned. Isn’t that fascinating?”
“See, I knew that grandpa agrees with me,” said my little brother with delusional pride.
“I heard that Trump wants to increase the minimum wage to $50 an hour,” I said.
“Are you sure that was not fifteen an hour,” mom said?
“Are you sure that was trump,” grandpa said?
“I think the minimum age should be fifty hundred dollars per hour,” said my little brother.
“You said minimum AGE. We were talking about the minimum WAGE,” said mom.
“I like this idea. Maybe we could just redefine a week to be seven consecutive Sundays,” said grandpa.
“speaking of Sunday,,” my little brother asked, “which religion is the most religious?”
“Now that is a very good question,” said Grandpa.
“Also, I really like to climb trees,” said my little brother.
“So, where are we going,” mom asked grandpa?
“When we get there, then I will show you, okay,” he replied?
“YESSSS,” said my little brother.
Here are two basic way to operate: with natural power or with a learned restriction of natural power. We’ll explore that contrast soon (as well as how to go from restricted power to “full power”).
First, note that when the natural capacity to be perceptive is not very developed, that is just a lack of wisdom, as in ignorance. However, there is a much more challenging possibility: arrogance.
Ignorance vs arrogance
Ignorance is the potential to learn. Arrogance is the distressed refusal to even risk the possibility of learning.
Arrogance is a kind of social distress that involves a desperate, anxious refusal to examine some “sacred” presumption (instead insisting on some specific dogma as being “an idea that is fundamentally better than all other alternatives”). Again, ignorance is simply not knowing. In contrast, arrogance is pretending to know for certain when in fact one is terrified of the possibility of being inaccurate (or even merely imprecise). Note that the behavioral animosity and antagonism that is associated with arrogance are just symptoms of the underlying state of hysteria.
“You do not respect my claims as much as you should… and they are not just claims, either! Obviously, they are fundamental truths, which is why I am terrified by the idea of anyone examining them… I mean disturbed by… no, ashamed, not disturbed… well, actually…. just offended, not ashamed. Right, I am definitely not ashamed. I am NOT that kind of person. I am very confident and I have like seriously a whole lot of faith, so yeah basically that is why I will totally freak out if you examine my presumptions… I mean, not presumptions… um, hey, look at this cute picture of an upside down dog!”
So, when someone has been intimidated in to closing their mind (so they refuse to “open their mind” out of terrified loyalty), what is that like for them? Then they are like someone who has forgotten that they have been wearing a blindfold.
The blindfold is familiar. They are comfortable with it.
Maybe they even insist that they can see “just as well as anyone else!” But to whom exactly are they comparing themselves?
“If the blind are following another blind person, then eventually they will all fall into a pit together!”
– Jesus Christ (From Matthew 15:14)
Minds are naturally open, right? Generally speaking, people do not need to learn to open their minds. What may be relevant is to learn to stop closing the mind.
Anyone can learn the value of focusing attention toward a specific thing (to “close” their minds to other alternatives). Anyone can learn the value of re-opening the mind to “the unfamiliar” (or even to things presumed to already be familiar).
One of the main problems for people who are terrified of learning is that there are other people who may not have the same learned refusals to learn. Again, note that no one would naturally refuse to learn about any subject. We only refuse to learn about things that we have learned to refuse to learn about!
So, if someone is desperately avoiding learning, then other people can be a big problem, especially young children. Young children have not learned to politely suppress displaying curiosity and intelligence.
For the arrogant, being around young children may seem great in small doses, but having them around all day long is likely to result in being exposed to a flood of direct questions. Those questions can be embarrassing intelligent.
“If being fat is so bad, then why do bears always get so fat right before winter? Also, if it is so bad to eat things that have a lot of fat (like fresh milk from a cow), then how did cows get so fat? Did they get fat by eating a lot of fat in their food?
Also, if eating fat is so bad, then why would a cow make a bunch of fat and then put a lot of it in to their milk to feed the baby cows with that milk with lots of fat? When mommies make milk to feed their babies, is there any fat in the mother’s milk?
Are you saying that your own mother made milk that had fat in it? Did her mother make milk that had fat in it, too? Are there any animals who naturally make fat-free milk for their babies? So, do a lot of babies die from overdoses of fat???”
I mentioned that simple questions of logic can be embarassingly intelligent. Why would intelligent curiosity be embarrassing, though?
Let’s review my prior comment about arrogance:
“Arrogance is pretending to know for certain when in fact one is terrified of the possibility of being inaccurate (or even merely imprecise).”
Young kids that ask smart, simple questions can reveal the intellectual insecurity of an adult. Many adults have memorized many doctrines about science, but some of those adults are absolutely terrified of actual scientific inquiry. They are embarrassed by their hysterical fear of science (and paranoid that their pretenses of scientific credibility will be revealed as “only pretending”).
So, perhaps fat is not itself inherently “poisonous.” Perhaps eating fat is not the only way for the amount of fat in an organism to increase (since organisms also manufacture fat). In fact, maybe fat is valuable… somehow.
However, cholesterol is a very dangerous substance, right? Isn’t that one of the demons that can possess an organism and then spread all through it from the inside and consume it?
Or, is that a tumor? That is one of those living things that demonically possesses an organism and causes cancer right? Or is cancer a parasitic demon that causes tumors? Or is cancer just a label for demonic tumors that possess people and then….
Let’s focus now on germs. Germs are inherently dangerous, too, right? Healthy creatures will instantly die if they come in to contact with unsterilized dog slobber, right? Dog slobber is a leading cause of death for dogs, right?
But what about the slobber of a dog that has been sterilized (made unable to reproduce)? Is a sterilized dog’s slobber safer than slobber from an unsterilized dog?
Note that I am not arguing that people who have severely compromised immune systems can safely be exposed to dog slobber. Maybe physical contact with dog slobber would be quite deadly for some portion of humanity (unless they somehow improve their health)….
Researchers at the University of Scientific Infallibility recently found that pigs who were forced to avoid anything dirty would, after the initial stage of the research was complete, gleefully dive in to a puddle of mud at the first opportunity.
Eventually, you may notice that words are things that we can use playfully. We can talk about sterilized dogs with unsterilized slobber. Why? To play with the idea of sterilization.
We could play with absolutely any idea. So, let’s focus now directly on the topic of language itself.
“See that a massive ship is directed by a very small rudder. Likewise, the tongue is a small part of the body, and yet it is like a small spark that sets an entire forest on fire. So, the tongue is a fire, a world of evil among the parts of the body. It corrupts the whole body, sets the whole course of one’s life on fire, and is itself set on fire by hell.” – The Apostle James (in James 3:4-6)
Does everyone burn with rage? What about infants?
They may protest. They may even bite. But do they burn with envy or jealousy or hatred?
Do they experience lasting contempt? Do they suffer the self-perpetuating torments of hell, such as “I simply do not deserve these UNJUST consequences” or, to an even greater extreme, “I actually deserve much WORSE than this, plus I did not ever deserve the GOOD things that I once had and that I have let slip away!”
Here’s another ancient scripture (Titus 1:15):
“To the pure, all things are pure. However,…”
To the one who is internally ashamed and holding in latent rage and hysteria, many things will trigger distress, justify outrages, and provoke shaming and persecution of others.
“Look at how foolish they are! Look at how hysterical they are! They are like little children who are waiting in line to sit on Santa’s lap and are too excited to use logic.
Yes, they are like arrogant children embarrassed by the idea that they have been so easily deceived by their elders. They are like fools who furiously insist that their elders have NOT conspired to deceive them about Santa Claus.
They dismiss it as obviously just a conspiracy theory to trick them. But they have already been tricked!
Then, they insist that there was a conspiracy to secretly attack a military base in Pearl Harbor, but they label that theory of a conspiracy as “not a conspiracy theory”… because if the holy authority on TV says that it is not a theory (but just a conspiracy), then that must be true! Yes, there was at least one conspiracy to destroy the world trade center buildings, but when the infallible newscaster theorizes about that that conspiracy, that is not a conspiracy theory either because I would be so embarrassed by the idea that I had ever been deceived that I would burst out in rage and deny it.
I know it must be true because I was programmed by a school teacher to focus on certain doctrines and then memorize them for blindly repeating on a test in exchange for social approval. But that programmed doctrine is not a theory, but a proven scientific fact!
Obviously, I am an expert at science because I memorized a bunch of scientific doctrines and then was encouraged to repeat them without critically comparing those ideas to any alternatives. Plus, now I am a member of the holy priesthood with that doctorate degree in the frame on the wall, so now I don’t need to respect other people who apparently do not know that I have a magic document that makes me infallible.
These arrogant skeptics come along and dare to say that they have questions about whether Santa Claus can really know about that very shameful thing that they did when you were briefly unsupervised the day before Christmas. I did my doctoral research on psychic telepathy, so of course Santa knows!”
For some, the painting of Jesus could remind us of a model of bravery and intelligence. For others, we may respond as if a living person is actually watching over us, so it helps us to relax and fall asleep.
For others, Jesus is like the guardian to “the other world” (which many Christians associate with Saint Peter, although the same function was served by Osiris and many pre-Christian figures). The painting of Jesus reminds us to do the things that Santa Claus will reward and to avoid doing the things that Satan will punish.
The re-emergence of natural power can happen in a sudden disorderly way (like a the top of a mountain exploding as a volcano erupts). The ancient story of Pandora opening her magical box is about the potential complications of unsupervised explorations of one’s own unconscious mind. Again, the big problem with hysterical reactions of avoidance is that they are hysterical (not calmly attentive) and also that they are reactions of avoidance (as in denial or intense shame).
Or, the re-emergence of natural power can happen in a gradual, orderly way (like a ripening or blossoming of a flower). If I interact with someone who is perceptive and devoted to my healthy re-calibration of my natural power, that can help the process be orderly, fast, and fun.
Is it easy to recognize the kinds of consequences that can result from operating with a conceptual blindfold? Also, isn’t it easier for someone who is not blindfolded to see how to remove the blindfold? If the knot is very tight, they might be able to get in a position in which they can easily untie the knot (or simply cut it).
In contrast to interacting with someone perceptive enough to help you to find conceptual blindspots (unexamined presumptions) and to remove conceptual blinders, you may interact with people who tend to encourage you to stay in your same familiar mode. They may even disorient you and distract you from your own learning process.
Some may be in a state of disorientation and I may try to help them but instead end up getting confused and frustrated and exhausted. They may throw tantrums and I, without recognizing it, may end up feeling that I am tangled up in their stress. I may be more stressed after interacting with them.
How did we learn to avoid our natural power? We begin curious and eventually we will get hurt accidentally, so we learn to be cautious. But that is not really avoiding natural power. That is simply learning to use it carefully.
In some cases, there are even massive social conspiracies to deceive the naive and manipulate their perceptions and actions. An example is adults telling children that there is a magic creature that knows their actions or even their thoughts. That mysterious creature could be Saint Nicholas or Saint Peter or Osiris or even, in some Asian cultures, deceased relatives.
That image above is from a Temple of the Free Masons in a city named after the person in the statue (George Washington). The person who was speaking to the gathered audience was Grandmaster Harry Truman, who was also a President of the USA.
Here is a different massive statue of George Washington. This one is underneath a huge dome.
What is depicted in the dome? The central figure is the holy savior, George Washington, with an angel on his right.
Various ancient gods are also shown, including a god famous for his three-pointed weapon. Some call him Neptune, some Poseidon, some Shiva, and some “the Devil.”
In red below is Mercury or Hermes or Odin. The middle day of the week is named after him and is called Wednesday (or Wodin’s Day, Mercredi, etc).
I believe the goddess shown below is Athena (or Diana). She is depicted as directing the activity of the founding fathers of this organization.
So, as the simple reality of social programming is recognized, it can be related to in a few ways (such as furiously condemned, hysterically glorified, hesitantly respected, or discretely practiced). Is it even possible to actually avoid programming others socially?
Consider that the word programming is not only about influencing other people’s attention and interpretations (use of language), but their behavioral responses to what they are programmed to perceive. So, if you speak to someone, such as your child, that is an instance of social programming. Also, if you buy something or sell something (such as selling your time as an employee in exchange for money), that is also an instance of programming other people’s actions (of influencing them in predictable ways).
To condemn all social programming (or any instance of it) is, ironically, for the purpose of attracting social approval. We condemn socially as an exercise of influence (to program our audiences).
The same is true for the activity of socially glorifying something or someone. We influence, primarily through the instrument of language (though through art as well).
Ultimately, the two main options in regard to socially programming other people are these: to do it inattentively (according to our habits of inherited programming) or to do it attentively (without preoccupation or negligent presumptiveness). In the latter case, there is a second potential issue of exactly how to program others.
Realistically, there is a spectrum of attentiveness. Some of us are extremely negligent about our presumptions, our purposes, and our practices. Some are a bit less negligent. Some are notably attentive. Some are exceptionally focused and precise.
Some individuals and groups invest a lot of time and energy in how to influence the attention, values, and interpretations of large numbers of people. First, however, it is more common to focus on how to effectively influence the attention, values, and interpretations of much smaller numbers of people, like one or two or three. We could call that “the study of effective communication.”
It can be rather amusing to see what Youtube’s auto=-transcription does with an audio:
There are some really interesting perspectives on how health works that
0:09will include really all electricity pH voltage and Stephen Sinatra is a
0:21cardiologist to our house I found out about the filing and basically there’s
0:30school they call magnetism and when blood cells left so congratulate or
0:36concealing gel or not they’re out there kind of instead of being little tiny
0:46piece of clay they’re making piece of crap coming together and that’s not
0:52including does happen on occasion forms of like us
0:57yeah but you shouldn’t have a really thick blood clot in the blood should be
1:04not so certain of blood through the two that it’s actually I did claim this is a
1:12perfect analogy for the thing about I see you get to that but there’s about
1:17liquid water turned out that because liquids can be in a liquid crystal or
1:26latin estate haven’t won its there’s an element of job or viscosity jelly gel so
1:35it’s not it’s got served so it’s not just blowing like you know reply off so
1:43she was not crying others have found out that there’s cool thing called and when
1:50the president of improperly charged
1:53they repel each other just a little bit they don’t know why they’re so easily
1:57they’ll get into these constant travel which make it really hard for that I
2:04take you to go through that so instead of having water got you know nothing
2:11like a nice group works crystal crystal crystal not a nice to visit in the in
2:18the direction of her you know and I so so how did another they found that it’s
2:31a very touching your grounding hurting and their body gets a little while the
2:39balances it tends to move back toward the voltage of the surface of your most
2:49may give you 40 microvolts so it’s very very moderate amount of voltage the
3:00right holders for a riddle repulsion between blood stuff so I have to do and
3:17that high blood pressure is such now it’s not like it instantly you know
3:25there’s a severe case of simply touch your it’s not that that’s what I find
3:36the readers on this you care to you know any Jews of the clock blood cell
3:4130 minutes of grounding in the folder the blood that they have photos of the
3:51bloody consumer blackouts are all are dispersed
3:55so now how does modern medicine do you use blood there’s ication works
4:02would be in the right direction in terms of one level of the year it may be
4:12beneficial to be in contact with you or for other reasons besides blood donor is
4:21actually sounds right on the other hand paint thinner so it is great to have no
4:35side effects I don’t have a reason but I do know that what what most medicine
4:42does in the case of high blood pressure they don’t address the Apple issuer the
4:47crossing of the cell due to electromagnetic shortage problem lack of
4:54charge so the black color still we feel they can’t really work well because
5:02they’re not engaged with carbon dioxide charity auction itself into everything
5:10that issues surrounding the blood vessel so there’s probably not addressing the
5:15car but what do modern medicine chemistry days of clothes do well they
5:24there’s a strong in the ICU issue right they they make the strong wire one thing
5:29that you to relax the muscles around the blood cells back to relax the muscles
5:38around the blood vessel that I huge can go through because it’s faster on the
5:42ICE Futures working right there should be lots of blood should be free floating
5:53individual red blood cells they can have to be involved with chemical reactions
5:59to kick up a fuss so right
6:09how much hype around the little that that is that has caused additional
6:22problems to do that yes you can make the saw a little bit bigger but it caused
6:27additional rather than the other thing that is really popular with blood
6:32pressure medications is somehow messing up the signal to help the park hard to
6:37push or so you got a little and I you and they just aren’t gonna pushes the
6:45literature you know from the pharmaceutical sample is let’s just meet
6:52I use there and you know the frosting to be thin we’re not going to have the
6:58blood flowing good yes the consequence of the limits to all the consequences
7:05are awful generally speaking but you can block where they have lockers and
7:11calcium channel blockers and all the different types of blood pressure
7:13medication can block signals from the brain you can keep it from getting
7:17transmitted from the bring all the way to the Hartley interrupt that signaling
7:24and then blocked the heart’s ability to interpret that signal or no
7:29at the end remember signals are they gonna cause muscle to respond to heart
7:36you can weaken the harsh response you can you can mess up the calibration
7:41brain heart connection that’s what much blood pressure medication is designed to
7:48do it doesn’t really well it causes a cascade of other health problems it
7:53doesn’t resolve the underlying problem of that ice cube for the clotting of the
7:57blood coagulation of the blood
7:59you know not the blood of working right
8:04but you don’t have high blood pressure and more well that’s true you can
8:09actually take these things these medications and they will reduce blood
8:12pressure blood importance of that blood pressure in the checklist of thing that
8:20in and of itself is here
8:25indicator that helps us like you know there’s a warning light on the dashboard
8:30of your car connector no take this you do that or whatever that didn’t make the
8:36carport so to interrupt of the high blood pressure
8:41box of the body is improving things generally speaking there can be extreme
8:47conditions where to interfere in some way can have a life-saving emergency
8:58medicine benefit but in general that chemical focus is is ignoring the
9:05electromagnetic situation and once you start messing with the body’s healing
9:12response while you’re you’re that’s interfering with the body’s functioning
9:17in the body’s healing response that’s a lot of what’s going on
9:20not that high blood pressure so is always good but there’s something or
9:31clotting of the blood then the heart that’s that’s an adaption that’s
9:37actually better than having crime blood and not having a hard push it where you
9:42know or you know so the increasing of the the hearts heart that it is a better
9:54solution in most cases that doing so can are fearing with the hearts increasing
10:01pressure in the actual improvement must tell you measure their performance like
10:08that athletic performances job performance of their ability to you know
10:12operate an airplane well at all this
10:16functional test does lowering blood pressure
10:20itself improve someone’s functionality no across the board across a large range
10:29of matter if not then simply reducing their blood pressure might be
10:36detrimental to their health and that chemical focus well it could be very
10:41good for selling certain medications pharmaceutical heart petrol him
10:47crude oil and if you’re rockefeller or one of the rock and you want to keep
10:57medicine from six which helps people and have them be addicts to the drugs you’re
11:03pushing they call you can you know manufacturer then put him on
11:10beta-blockers calcium channel blockers all these different kinds of things to
11:15make this trough a fire or interrupting the signal that goes from the brain to
11:24the heart to push a little bit hard it’s actually hilarious to me and you know
11:32what it’s for people who you are who are you know in distress and frustrated
11:39about the efficacy effectiveness of darkness and I mean certainly but on the
11:47other hand from pharmaceutical companies January governments you just look so
11:53well this is a really possible way to say that nobody can pick up the
12:07manufacturer that chemical that they know that bad blogger whatever they’re
12:12not interested in helping their individual persons you buy drugs at the
12:16drugstore from them they’re not interested in you know that
12:21acts just like any other drug viewer they’re just making money yes so anyway
12:27and that’s their business and people who think I well they shouldn’t be smoking
12:32addiction and they shouldn’t be drug dealer but they they are you heard you
12:40know you can focus on health and said or you could you know you some kind of
12:47political activism to overcome common good luck might be that you might find
13:04it more valuable to just help me back if you do I
BREAKING NEWS: Hillary Clinton gives Richard Simmons blow job in the white house
“How that is should NOT be how that is!” – Bill
There is an old saying that the one who has internalized a model of reality that does not match reality will experience stress when encountering any pattern that establishes the inaccuracy of the model. Rather than reject the inaccurate model that does not fit reality, they may throw a tantrum about the reality which they relate to as offensive (as in threatening or potentially embarrassing because it exposes their worship of an inaccurate model).
How safe are we from social targeting? Imagine a group of thugs or soldiers who go around in their local territory and gang up on individuals and businesses to intimidate people in to giving valuables to their group. The militant group might call themselves gangsters or “the Counts” or the county government. Or maybe they call themselves the Dukes and they go around and say “put up your dukes (raise your fists), because we are about to duke it out (to attack each other).”
So, even if we are safe from things like severe weather or floods or famines, there can still be an issue of other people intentionally taking things from us or injuring us (or even killing us). Further, social targeting can focus on a single individual or on an entire group (like based on location or skin color).
As an individual, I may be rather vulnerable to assault by predatory operations, like armies or a group of bullies. In fact, I could be vulnerable even to a single human bully or some other kind of predator (such as a bear or a shark or a group of killer bees or hyenas).
So there are a few reasons that I might be alert to a risk of social targeting. I might want to be cautious of individual bullies as well as groups of armed thugs.
Further, I also would not want a group of powerful bullies to persuade a huge crowd of people to target me. Maybe a mob of people gathers around me and says “we heard that you have been trying to avoid paying your fair share of the 10 percent sales tax to the local mafia bosses. All of us have to pay our tithe (our one “tenth”), so why should you be given an exception? Now, not only are the soldiers of the holy empire going to take everything that they claim that you owe them, but all of us are going to permanently stop doing business with you. In fact, we are kicking you out of the city limits. You have 24 hours to leave and never come back.”
There can be danger from individual thieves or bullies, groups of bullies, and even resentful victims of bullies who then turn their aggression toward those who attempt to live in an area without participating in the local extortion system (or protection racket). Anyone who even visits the area dominated by that extortion network will be expected to pay their share: 3% or 30% or whatever is the standard rate. Of course, there may be different levels of participation, like in some places, there may be lots of people having yard sales and as well as many other sellers who are not participating in the sales tax extortion network.
To clarify, some extortion networks have over-lapping layers, like a set of affiliates that collect a variety of taxes (and other payments) for local government, state government, and federal government. Those various types of government are formally in alliance with each other. In some cases, the local governments are basically extensions or branches of the central rulers.
In other cases, the common people do not have any direct relationship with the “king of kings.” The local kings just collect the taxes in their local kingdom and then send a portion to their ruler (far away in Rome or Jerusalem, etc). The supreme ruler regulates the relationships between the kings, but is only occasionally involved in the activities within each kingdom, such as the sacred and holy ritual of placing the crown on the head of a new local warlord, called a coronation ceremony.
Further, within each kingdom, there will be several smaller jurisdictions. Those will be governed by a hierarchy of powerful officials, such as Barons, Counts, Dukes, Grand Dukes, and Arch Dukes (who are all below the rank of the region’s central government, with it’s Major Generals and Prime Ministers and High Priests and Chief Justices).
Within a single region, the various counties are not in conflict with each other. Each Count (or Magistrate or Mayor) rules over the local county while generally conforming to the basic rules of the larger extortion network. The Counts (and their ruling deputies within each county’s government) generally do not interfere with the extortion operations of neighboring Counts and the counties in which they extort wealth.
If a Count or Monarch is extremely stable in their domination of a particular region, it is predictable that they will even create a local council or national parliament, who will be democratically elected. That can be very beneficial for compliance (like when there is a plan to raise tax rates from 3% to 30% or more).
That democratic voting ritual allows for those who are given the privilege of voting to exert some degree of influence over the extortion operations of that county or kingdom. Each voter can cast one vote (perhaps among thousands or millions) to elect one commissioner or one senator. Then, the royal nobles and their lobbyists of course guide the activities of the commissioners and senators. However, the can be quite a circus of scandals to distract the people of Canada (for instance) from their domination by a distant Monarch (while they argue over which politician or political party seems to them to be the least corrupt).
If the Monarch wants to regulate which health care practices are legal or not, that is what will happen. If the Monarch wants to funnel money from the public to subsidize certain health care practices (such as a certain method of electric shock therapy to promote a certain level of psychiatric health in the general public) then that is what will happen.
Also, if the Monarch wants to create programs in which a small group of lobbyists create an educational curriculum and then implement mandatory indoctrination rituals for the youth of the commonwealth, then those youth can be directed to focus on certain issues (which are pre-selected by the commissioners on the federal curriculum committee). The youth can be trained to memorize and blindly repeat whatever information they are presented (such as doctrines about “science” which the youth have never questioned or verified). Then, more social pressure can create more social anxiety through the rituals of testing. Those who bindly repeat with the greatest conformity will be rewarded with high grades and perhaps even scholarships so that they can be properly trained for roles in the more privileged occupations within the holy empire, such qualifying to obtain a teaching certificate or a medical license.
At all levels of the empire’s programming system, students who raise unwelcome questions of scientific merit in regard to the holy doctrines of the science classroom can be ignored at first. If they persist, they will be more and more severely discplined for disrupting the holy rituals of indoctrination, such as by suspension, “therapeutic” electric shocks, or expulsion.
Will the students be brainwashed in regard to the nature of the holy empire of extortion and the nature of the indoctrination rituals of propaganda? They will be taught that certain patterns of interaction are shameful. So, when in the midst of indoctrination, they will be shamed in to silent participation. If they eventually relax from the first layers of social anxiety, then they may still retain quite a bit of hysteria. They will say things like “let’s reform our system of extortion so that it fits with how we were brainwashed to think that it already was.”
The layers of shame can be intense. As someone is coming out of the hypnosis of the propaganda programs, they will presume that certain recent politicians have betrayed them. They still believe that the extortion system was not a system of corruption and extortion until recently. They think that a particular instance of corruption was isolated. They think that the corruption of a particular politician (or lobbyist or company or industry) is isolated.
They desperately attempt to attract social validation by condemning Monsanto while ignoring DuPont and Bayer and a long list of chemical manufacturers that have nearly identical business practies as Monsanto. They also attempt to invalidate “the evil political party” or “the so-called scientists who dare to question the scientific credibility of the holy doctrines that are publicized in the holy rituals of indoctrination.”
They are trying to fix “the isolated problem.” They believe that certain patterns of activity are shameful, which is what they have been carefully programmed to believe. So, they hysterically seek to inform others about whatever pet issue or new isolated case best serves the narrative of their ego or social persona.
They have been programmed to focus on certain subjects but not others, to invalidate and ridicule certain ideas but not others, and to bully or extort certain groups but not others. Further, their social distress will almost inevitably evolve in to a contemptuous targeting of the local Monarch (or of the public figure presented as the official King of Kings currently, such as the Holy Roman Pope).
After all, they are just displaying their loyalty to the programmed ideals of the holy indoctrination rituals. They are just competing to be the best perfectionist and attract the most social validation. They are trying to save humanity from “inherently shameful things” like corruption and extortion and taxation and deception and rituals of indoctrination.
Further, if they are exposed too fast to “deprogramming” content such as this article, they may suddenly get headaches, nausea, and drowsiness. They cannot handle the truth. It literally makes them sick (vomit). It is that terrifying. They are so intimidated by the holy rituals of social pressure that they can experience massive distress and shame about realities that they will go to great lengths to deny or dismiss or simply to distract themselves from.
“Look here at yet ANOTHER paragraph where Monsanto clearly influenced the content of that textbook AGAIN!?!? See, it is just like I have been telling you for the last 20 years. See?!?! I’m sure you finally agree now that I am extremely loyal to the ideals that I was programmed to worship, aren’t I? Don’t you agree that I am a heroic genius for spending so much time saving the world from yet another isolated case?”
How many isolated cases does it take before they are no longer isolated cases? How many thousands of years does it take before a particular system is no longer “new?”
When hysterically ridiculing some “isolated” villain, such as Monsanto or Hitler, that can be a shift from total denial toward rage about an isolated case. After raging at enough “isolated cases,” people may even at some point experience clear recognition and calm acceptance.
So, to back up, there will be a vast network of collaborators, like monarchs and prime ministers and counts and even elected county commissioners. Their alliance will seek to monopolize the extortion business within their geographic range by criminalizing unauthorized extortion. They will not only resist small-scale extortion operations like neighborhood thugs and gangsters, but they will also resist invasion by a neighboring kingdom or network.
In order to preserve their dominance, they will make alliances with neighboring extortion operations to minimize the chance of invasion by an adjacent extortion operation. Further, when they do participate in invasions to colonize other nations and expand the territory of their extortion operation, they may do so with a group of allies, like the US, UK, and USSR worked together to invade mainland Europe in the mid 1940s. (Or, the US, France, and USSR were all sending troops to invade Vietnam by the 1960s).
So, just as I might be concerned about being targeted for extortion by a lone bully, by an organization, or by the victims of a powerful organization, I might also be interested in the other side of the dynamic. I might be interested in turning in most anyone who does not conform to the demands of an extortion system. I might be interested in participating in an extortion operation as a mercenary, as some other employee of whatever rank, or as a person who help others in their relations with their local system of extortion, such as by offering services as a tax attorney or accountant.
Finally, I might also be interested in extorting wealth from people without an organization of allies, such as by ambushing someone in an ally and demanding that they voluntarily buy a $10 stolen watch from me for $40 (or else, implicitly, I will make them pay an even higher price). It is like saying “I don’t want to hurt you, but that is just a preference. If you do not accept my first offer quickly, then my current generosity and compassion may disappear in an instant.”
All of these activities can be compared and contrasted with each other on a spectrum. Each is distinct in the specifics, but similar in the foundation of coercion and extortion.
In addition to overt social targeting for predatory extortion, there are related kinds of warfare that are more psychological in nature, like pressuring people with guilt trips to get them to make a donation or take some other action. Or, people can bait others rather than emotionally blackmail them, like suggesting that if they do as they are told, then they will receive generous rewards from a magical sorcerer named Santa Claus (AKA Saint Nicolaus) who is watching them right this second with invisible telepathic satellites. Or, maybe the voyeur is an immortal wizard named Saint Peter who, if they are obedient, will reward them when they die with exclusive access to a harem of 70 virgins (at least, what I was told is that they are virgins…).
Who will target heretics that threaten their most sacred delusions? Almost everyone who has been programmed to hold certain delusions as sacred will eventually be exposed to interactions that threaten their delusions.
We may naively maintain a delusions for years but then encounter people who never have even heard of Santa Claus. They may find our sincere assertions quite hysterical (even ridiculous).
We may even encounter people who used to sincerely believe in Santa Claus, but no longer do. Naturally, some of us will hysterically call them traitors and liars (for daring to say that certain details of popular dogma about Santa Claus might be inaccurate). However, we may eventually develop skepticism about our familiar dogmas.
If they pose reasonable questions about Santa, we may say “I have never thought of that and I admit that the questions that they are asking about Santa Claus are logical and I do not know how to answer them.” We begin to accept the possibility that we may have had some misconceptions about Santa.
However, it is quite startling to confront the idea that there was a massive conspiracy to intentionally deceive millions of naive youth. Would adults intentionally mislead us just to manipulate our behavior?!?!
If so, I am sure that it is just an isolated case. Actually, no, the Easter Bunny is actually somewhat similar. Also, there is the tooth fairy. But… but… those are not designed to manipulate children in to blind obedience and anxiety about a telepathic magicians who knows what they are doing and probably even knows about the shameful things they are thinking of doing!?!?
But regarding all of the things that lobbyists have invested huge amounts of money and time to get publicized to the youth, those must all be entirely accurate, right? I mean, sure maybe a few other governments in distant times and far away places might have intentionally indoctrinated their youth with delusions, but those are all just isolated cases, right?
I know that there was that one case of television programming that showed that one politician pretending to be an actor who was just reading lines from a script and pretending to be a pro wrestler who was very mad at their opponent for cheating, but… but that is just an isolated case, right? And there was the one thing about that one pro athlete who very rarely will fake in one direction but then go the other way on purpose just to deceive their opponents, that is just an isolated case, right?
I guess there that was that other isolated case in which an athlete intentionally committed a foul in order to stop the clock, but that was breaking the rules and no one should ever break the rules because that is cheating and people should not cheat, right? I mean, what would happen in every pro athlete on every team in every sport were all intentionally breaking rules in very selective ways in order to influence the outcome of the game? That kind of cheating and dishonesty would ruin the popular appeal for sports, right?
Plus, shouldn’t it be illegal to intentionally fake in direction and then go the other way? How can the refs just let them get away with that?
Those athletes need to be fined. Those refs need to be fired.
We need to raise awareness about the use of deceptive movements in pro sports. Dishonest spontaneous faking is almost as bad as those shameful “misdirection plays” (like a play-action pass or a reverse) that involve a PLANNED deception carried out by a GROUP of people.
We need to reform sports immediately to prevent isolated cases of shameful shames, like the one time that a pro athlete took a bribe to intentionally lose an event (but not by too many points because then their sponsor would have lost money on the bet). People should not have to ever experience shame because that would be like finding out that we may have sincerely made statements to other people about Santa Claus that might not have been entirely accurate. That must be the worst, right?
Shame is probably really awful to experience, right? I mean, I would not personally know about that, but isn’t that the thing when someone is hysterically paranoid about competing for social validation? That is like a kind of chronic anxiety, right?
Yeah, isn’t that like when someone goes around ridiculing and invalidating pro wrestlers because basically politicians should not pretend to be actors who are performing in circuses to distract the public from the basic fact that we live in the midst of extortion networks that seek to govern the attention, perception, and behavior of the occupied populations in their plantations? Plus, what kind of awful things might happen if the Easter fairy accidentally loses a tooth that Santa gave to it for good behavior? How can that tooth ever be replaced? It’s not like the Easter fairy can just grow a new one (or get dentures), right? And what if the Easter fairy INTENTIONALLY loses a tooth?!?!
These are very urgent issues and therefore we need a new, more honest Easter fairy to resolve these issues for us. The media has done their job of telling us what is important. Now our duty is to elect the best Easter fairy for the job, right?
After all, we don’t want to regret not doing more to prevent other people from feeling the wrong amount of guilt, right? Therefore, we need to elect an Easter fairy that really cares about each of us amongst the 1,000,0000,000,000 members within our network. That is why I support the candidate who is very different than all of the others because my favorite candidate has been consistently speaking out against corruption for 900 years.
WHAT IS “A REAL MAN?” (On respecting essentials over mere priorities and priorities over mere ideals)
You know the kind of guy that women love to talk about with each other? That is a kind of guy that they find interesting to talk about. We might even call that an “ideal” of a man.
Women may like to imagine a certain kind of man because they like how it feels to imagine themselves with him. They may also fantasize about the boss that they wish they had or the job they wish they had or even the political leader that they wish they had.
Keep in mind that when a bunch of women are socializing with each other, they may talk about a lot of things. What they say to each other about their ideal man (or anything else) is… their business.
Now, imagine a bunch of moms sitting around having lunch together and talking about their ideals of how their little boys will be when they grow up. Or, imagine a pair of really old women talking about what they used to say about their ideal son or their ideal mate. They might be laughing about it all.
Men can have ideals, too, like about how they should be or how they should not be. They can learn those ideals from their own family members, from mass media programming, from classroom social conditioning or from many other sources.
Or, they can form their own ideals. Even in the total absence of any social pressure to adopt certain behaviors or avoid certain behaviors, isn’t it inevitable that they would learn to admire certain results and fear certain results? Wouldn’t they inevitably develop preferences and priorities?
Note that I am not talking about identifying a particular set of behaviors that will hopefully produce the result of social approval. Attracting some form of social approval (either from a specific person or many people) might be the priority outcome of a man, like during a job interview or a sales pitch. Other than that, how important is social approval in general?
One of the first contrasts between the average man and a “real” man is that many men are focusing on preserving the ideals that they were presented in their youth. They were young boys back then and they are old boys now (socially).
Physically, they are men (adult males). However, socially (emotionally, mentally, behaviorally), they are still “tamed.” They are still in a state of chronic stress, preoccupied with attracting social approval (and avoiding social disapproval) by presenting a persona that conforms to certain ideals of behavior.
In other words, they are anxiously pre-occupied with pretending to match some social ideal that they adopted as a coping mechanism in some stressful situation(s) in the past. If there is an obvious contrast between their social ideal and their actual behavior, they will experience a form of intense fear called shame. They may apologize and promise to keep trying the method that they were already trying (as in “I will be sincere again next time, except even harder than last time”). Or they may attempt to justify a particular incident as somehow conforming to one ideal even if it violated another. Simply put, they remain in an inner conflict (in shame). They may even ridicule other people for “being even more offensive” relative to whatever holy ideal they are worshiping.
What about a “real” man? They are not pretending to be a particular way. They are not pretending to be real. They are not trying to convince anyone that they have always been free of pretenses or inauthenticity. They are not hysterically preoccupied with convincing anyone of anything.
They are not trying to invalidate others who do not match a particular ideal (or who do not even glorify a particular ideal). They are not trying to compete for constant social approval. They are not arguing over which ideals are most ideal or least idealistic. They are not arguing that some ideals or all ideals are shameful.
They recognize that when there is shame, there is an ideal behind that shame (and often the precise ideal is not clear to the person experiencing shame because for them it is not just a simple ideal, but an unexamined assumption). There is nothing unusual to them about shame. It can come and it can go. There is nothing unusual to them about ideals either. They can form, transform, and dissolve.
They are interested in the contrast between tense pretenses and relaxed authenticity. They prefer authenticity. In other words, it is an ideal.
But an ideal is not the same as an essential or a priority. When something is essential, failure to address it will typically have fast, obvious, disastrous effects.
For instance, have you ever driven a car for half an hour? Would it be merely an ideal to keep your eyes open and stay awake for the entire drive, or would all of that be essential? How about breathing several times during that half-hour drive? Would it be ideal to inhale and exhale at least a few times in a half hour or would it be essential? How about having on a seat belt?
So one possible problem (that may be present in the vast majority of people) is that they confuse things that are socially ideal with things that are actually essential or priority. They have been socially programmed to organize themselves around this priority: attracting social approval and avoiding social disapproval.
Again, certain kinds of social approval can be essential in relation to a particular priority. Be attentive to the wording here. There are outcomes and there are methods. With a certain priority outcome (such as keeping a certain job), it may be essential to behave in conformity to certain social ideals. However, the behavioral essentials for working as a paramedic are not the same as for a pilot, right?
So the outcome defines the means. This is not about justifying particular means or invalidating other means. This is just saying that different outcomes will require different methods. By requiring a certain method, I mean that the method will be essential, but only relative to that outcome. The outcome regulates which method is best or most fitting.
Next, ideals are not universal. Notice how different groups will have different ideals? For instance, toddlers and grandparents do not have identical ideals, right? A toddler may learn a few new social ideals in a single day!
So a real man is not confused about ideals. A “real” man does not need to make “having no ideals at all” in to a new ideal to worship. Ideals can be respected for what they are, which is a type of strong preference.
Essentials are essential. With a target outcome that it is essential to produce, there will be no problem with taking unusual risks.
For instance, imagine a person driving a pregnant woman who is in labor to a medical specialist. Is that driver willing to violate traffic rules that they would normally follow? Are they unusually willing to honk or wave or yell in order to aggressively direct other drivers?
Some traffic rules will be nearly essential to follow. Others will be a high priority, but not quite essential. Finally, some rules will be quite easy to discard temporarily.
If we have a moderately strong preference toward a certain pattern of behavior, then we can call it an ideal behavior. It is not an essential behavior (like breathing). It is not even a priority behavior (like waiting for traffic lights to turn green). It is just a strong preference (an ideal).
An example might be to come to a complete stop at a stop sign. There can be legal consequences for only slowing down and making sure there is no traffic, then carefully rolling through (like for a yield sign).
However, what if there has been a collision nearby and a car is spinning wildly toward the stop sign? What if the safest thing is clearly to advance ahead of the stop sign without stopping first?
In some cases, there could be major negative consequences for failing to violate a minor rule. It could be a high priority or even essential to temporarily ignore an ideal. Ignoring what is essential, even temporarily, has a totally different level of consequence than ignoring what is ideal. To help you remember the simplicity of that, consider the importance of breathing while driving compared to the importance of wearing a seat belt.
So real men, like real women, are not hysterically obsessed with perfectionism. They know that essentials are essential, priorities are priority, and ideals are merely ideal.
They also know that there are outcomes that can be so important that typical behavioral ideals will be “relaxed.” In an emergency, practical priorities always outweigh mere social ideals. If an ideal ever conflicts with a priority, the ideal will be immediately discarded….
The more hysterically that someone relates to social ideals, the more conflict or shame they will feel about having temporarily ignored socially-programmed ideals. Note that when a person forms their own social ideals based on observation, they have no confusion that the ideals are just ideals. The ideals that trouble us most are programmed ideals that we have never examined and that we have sincerely confused with behavioral priorities.
What outcomes should someone have as their targets? That is a question about which ideals they have been programmed to use.
A different question is this: which outcomes are essential, which are priority, and which are ideal? If an essential outcome is perceived to be threatened, everything else gets interrupted to promote that outcome.
Next, the linguistic model of a three-category spectrum is arbitrary. We could easily divide the same conceptual spectrum six times or nine times.
So, as each level of priority outcome is fulfilled, then the next lower level comes in to attention as the most important priority that is not yet fulfilled. As the target outcome changes, then the amount of hysteria about social ideals can decline. In other words, when people are most desperate or distressed or emotionally unstable, then they will most rigidly cling to familiar ideals (without any thought of examining them).
When do people examine their ideals? A common sequence is that a high priority outcome comes in to question (or something essential is suddenly threatened), and then people take actions that they know are not consistent with their previouosly stated ideals. So, they take the action and fulfill the high priority, but then experience shame.
Eventually, they may recognize that the shame is merely a social display. Shame is about an expectation of negative social consequences for the temporary violation of an ideal. Shame is just intense embarrassment, and both are forms of alarm, distress, stress, fear, alert, or extreme caution.
Shame is a social signal of submissiveness. One who experiences shame is expecting punishment. Shame is a display of loyalty to old social ideals that were programmed and have never been examined. Once the behavioral ideals are examined, we can recognize that they are mere ideals and also recognize how they can be very useful guidelines, at least for a child or a person of limited social stability or wealth.
When someone lacks discretion and perceptiveness, then rigidly adhering to programmed social ideals is adaptive. It can even be essential to survival, at least for a while.
Consider the practice of lying. It can be very detrimental, like in the context of a job or an important relationship. However, lying can occasionally be a priority or even essential. Otherwise, why would anyone who has ever been punished for lying ever lie again? Why? Because in some cases it may seem to be worth the risk.
The real man is realistic about behavioral ideals. They are formed for a reason. They eventually change. They may be upgraded to behavioral priorities or even behavioral essentials (like in a certain job, it may be essential to always answer the phone every time it rings, or else expect to lose that job).
Are you realistic about ideals and priorities and essentials? Or, are you hysterically distressed about competing for social approval of your particular form of idealism and perfectionism and social obsessiveness? Do you hysterically ridicule others antagonistically (or merely tease occasionally in a casual social way)?
Are you upset by the idea that hysteria and shame exist? Or, do you casually accept the simplicity of the reality of shame and hysteria and denial and so on? Do you plainly recognize that some emotional displays may be shamed as negative or socially invalidated? Or, do you hysterically relate to certain emotions as somehow fundamentally better or worse than other emotions?
If you have a strong preference for certain emotions, that is a sign of being human. If you relate to certain emotions as fundamentally shameful, that is operating within the emotion of shame. Most people are chronically ashamed and hysterically in denial of their constant state of distress and social anxiety.
They may be ashamed of shame. They may not simply respect it. Instead, they may ridicule it in others and deny it hysterically in themselves (or else desperately justify occasional exceptions).
They hysterically practice the shaming of particular behaviors (rather than selectively and efficiently shaming only certain people and only in very deliberate and caring ways). They do not waste their time shaming people they do not know or arguing with strangers about which ideals are the most ideal (or the least idealistic).
They are not competing for social recognition of their authenticity. They are not trying to be glorified as the least competitive or the least socially-anxious.
They are relaxed and natural. They desire what they desire. They assess risks and take the risks they take, then learn from whatever results they produce.
They assess their target outcomes and their behavioral strategies. They adapt. They invent. They test. They refine.
If something is not working for them, they want to know. If it is working, they may want to measure how well it is working.
They are not just hysterically taking actions “because they should.” Or, if they do experience occasional hysteria, they can admit it without shame.
They know they have been naive. They know that confusion is part of life and most instances of confusion are not even important.
They focus on identifying outcomes that powerfully motivate them and then prioritizing the best methods for producing those results. They focus on perceptiveness and effectiveness, not defending prior methods or invalidating some method as inherently… anything.
They are not pretending that certain behavioral standards are always more important than any outcome. They are not hysterical fanatics. They are not “socially tamed.” They may appear quite tame when they choose to promote that appearance, but they may also be “quite intense.”
As for their preferences in relation to female companionship, they notice what appeals to them most, as well as what repulses them. They focus their attention selectively and deliberately, generally ignoring what most people are doing, except when intentionally measuring social trends or influencing social trends.
“Do good and evil exist?” Well, I will get to that.
First, I presume that the real question there is “do good and evil exist as absolutes outside of language, like certain behaviors or develpments are inherently good or inherently evil?” Absolutes only exist within the realm of language, because absolutes are just one type of linguistic concept. Concepts only exist within language, so no absolute concepts exist outside of language, including “good and evil.” So that is the short answer (to my modified version of the original question).
Next, I believe that language exists and within language there is a set of words known as gerunds. Those are verb forms being used as adjectives.
Notice the following uses of the past tense verb form of “vilified:”
“One activity was eventually severely vilified and that vilified activity became much less frequently practiced.”
Notice the following statement which uses the past tense verb form of “glorified” as an adjective:
“Whenever the young child announced that they needed to pee and went to sit on the training toilet instead of wetting their diaper, then that pattern of activity was celebrated and glorified by their mother. The mother’s influence socially reinforced the glorified activity. Eventually, the intensity of the glorification of each individual case diminished considerably. Further, the targets of vilification and glorification also changed so that simply using the toilet was no longer the primary focus, but instead the activity of flushing the toilet after using it, especially for poop.”
So, in addition to the existence of gerunds, I also believe in the existence of contractions. A word like evil is a condensing of the word vilified, just like good is a shortened version of glorified, and like should is a shortened or alternate version of supposed. Here is an example: “Jack supposed that he should probably just do whatever Jill supposed that he was supposed by her to do.”
Many people experience a state of perpetual spiritual hysteria and then hysterically relate to the various instances of language. Language, by the way, is one form of a social behavior and it is specifically an instrument for influencing the attention and perception and behavior of others. Also, the state of constant social anxiety or hysteria has been carefully cultivated by the government rituals of indoctrination which are used in mainstream schooling. (Just below, I will say more about the rituals for indoctrinating children with unscientific doctrines about science.)
While it is generally easy to relate intelligently to language, an intelligent relationship with language is not only ignored in schools (not emphasized), but may be specifically interfered with. In other words, hysterical uses of language are glorified and intelligent uses of language are either ignored or even discouraged or vilified.
Students who disrupt a science classroom by asking intelligent questions about the scientific merit of particular claims will be punished and disciplined, right? The classroom ritual is about glorifying memorization and repetition, as in indoctrination about science rather then the practice of scientific methods and inquiry. A hysterical relationship to particular claims about science is glorified and an intelligent relationship to language and science, which would be a natural development for any child who is not under the influence of cultural hypnosis and intense social pressures, is systematically eradicated.
People can be encouraged to worship a few words of mysterious poetry about “the creation of night and day” (in the first chapters of the first book of the Bible). What is the simple, obvious, rather boring truth about the creation of night and day?
Night and day fundamentally are linguistic categories. We associate night and day with particular times, although technically night and day are places. It is always night and always day, but different parts of the earth will be in the place of night or in the place of day at any particular time.
Further, what is the exact boundary between night and day? Which hour is it? Which minute? Which second? Does all of the world switch from night to day in a single instant? Does an entire “time zone” switch from night to day in a single second? Does the sun set at the exact same second throughout an entire time zone stretching across hundreds of miles east to west?
If we use a heavenly measurement for the moment that day ends and night begins in a certain place, such as the sun dipping below the horizon or above the horizon, then there still a problem because there could be mountain ranges to the east or west. So, with that system of using direct visibility of the suns rays, then somebody who is standing near the ridge of a mountain can step into the shadow of night or into the brightness of day in just one step. They can move back-and-forth between the place of night in the place of day. If someone climbs up or down a tower near the time of sunset, are they also going back and forth between the places of night and day?
So language creates night and day. Outside of language, there is no discrete physical absolute boundary between those two linguistic concepts.
They are not two isolated physical realities (such as “either night or day”). There is one reality (and language can be used to divide reality into subcategories).
Language creates night and day as well as heaven and earth as well as land and sea and light and dark. No matter how close we get to a precise boundary between any two complementary linguistic categories, there is always more precision possible.
For instance, someone can claim that a certain temperature is a freezing temperature and that a certain other temperature is above freezing. However, that boundary also is not absolute. It depends on things like air pressure and elevation.
So, the temperature at which water boils or freezes will vary from place to place. There is no constant freezing point of water. In fact, in general, science does not have ANY constants that are actually constant. Even “the gravitational constant” has been measured to gradually vary from time to time.
Some researchers claim that gravity is simply one type of electromagnetic attraction and the electromagnetic properties of the earth fluctuate minutely across years and decades. Further, if the sun is constantly sending neutrinos and other particles with mass toward the earth, then we could also expect the mass of the earth to predictably increase over time (at least if the sun were the only influence on the total mass of the earth).
So, if any mathematical variable within an equation is fluctuating, then that can complicate the fact that all “mathematical constants” are derived from measurements and calculations. The constant is not fundamental to mathematics. The constant is “created” based on repeated observation. When more precise measuring instruments are invented and used, once again, the “official constant” may be revised.
There can be some conceptual problems with the things that humans label as “constant.” They may even be uniform across the planet in one particular instant, so in that sense they are constant. However, if each “constant” also changes over time, even very gradually, then clearly they are not constants in the aboslute sense. The value of the various constants may depend on the specific mass and electromagnetic charge of the earth, which can change.
The constants may only be constant across space, but not across time. Or, they are not even constant across space, even though reasonably close in different places. Ultimately, any honest scientist would admit that all “constants” are nothing more than “estimates” or “predictions” or “projections.” They are simply “socially-approved ratios to be used to project future measurements according to one unfirm standard of projection.”
And, moving on from the general topic of constants to a specific constant, most people (or at least many people) are chronically hysterical (as in socially anxious or shamefully paranoid). So they might argue with antagonism and animosity for WEEKS over which is the real freezing point of water: 0° or 32°. They might argue which is the real scale (which is the only right one for measuring temperature): Celsius or Fahrenheit?
Not only is there no “real” freezing point for water because the freezing point for water is not actually constant, but there is no single scale that is more of a scale or less of a scale than any other scale. Also, if I am using the relatively obscure Kelvin scale, then perhaps the hysterical advocates of Celsius or of Fahrenheit will create an alliance against the “Kelvinists” who are clearly “heretics that threaten all that is holy in our religion of science.” (Or was that a thin reference to some anti-hysteria hysteria involving the religious “Calvinists?”)
What if all of the warnings about “eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil” are very practical? What if the original commentary is clearly a warning about hysteria and obsession with certain linguistic labels? What if the popular translations and interpretations are not meant to avoid hysteria, but are actually translations made either by people who were hysterical and delusional as they were making the translations, or who were calmly and intentionally cultivating hysteria in their chosen targets of verbal psychological warfare?
So there is an inclusive linguistic concept of reality, which is everywhere and eternal and all power is contained within it. The ancient Hebrews had a word for that and we may translate it into English as God.
Also, there is a linguistic category that in English we label with this symbolic sequence of letters: “language.” That language is not the same as reality, although reality is just a linguistic concept itself. Reality creates language and then language create the boundaries between day and night or heaven and earth or light and darkness (or between Fahrenheit and Celsius).
If we translate the ancient Hebrew word for language into English, we may simply use the word God. However if we translate first into Greek from Hebrew, then will use the word logos and then we translate the word logos into English, we will say the Word or language. Then we write down this sequence: “In the beginning, God was in God, and God was with God, and God was God, who is the one and only God.”
For those who are familiar with the first verses of the Old Testament and the New Testament, I just referenced them. Now let’s talk more specifically about some famous metaphors about trees….
Within the tree of reality, language is one branch. We could even say that within the tree of reality, language is the trunk and out of that trunk come all of the branches of the tree. There is a hidden or invisible root system, but the trunk of language allows us to differentiate many branches which seem isolated from each other unless we trace them back to the trunk.
So, there are no distinct branches or subsets of reality until language begins to categorize the inclusive omnipresent boundless God, which some Hindus refer to as Brahman. The divine unity of the trunk is a singular whole, and from that unity springs a variety or diversity of branches. All those branches of the divine tree are also the tree. There is no section of the tree that is “outside of the tree.”
So, reality is like a tree. Language is like the trunk of that tree which allows all of the branches of reality (all the forms of reality) to be named. Does reality take many forms? Yes. Are any of those forms “an independent reality isolated from the rest of reality?” No.
Moving on, the authors of the Old Testament make clear references to a living entity which came down to this planet from heaven and communicated with individuals such as Noah and Moses and many other prophets. That entity claims to have unleashed a flood to destroy most of the life on earth and also unleashed some plagues to wipe out large numbers of Israelites. Prophets such as Ezekiel were taken up into a spacecraft (or “flying cloud chariot”) by this entity.
In the Hebrew language, that entity would be referenced with a word like Hashem. Naturally, hysterical translators might also translate that word in to English as “God.”
So there are three distinct uses of the word God. There is a Hebrew “holy trinity.” First there is the concept of the almighty, inclusive, omnipresent reality (or “the universe”). Next there is the function of language which is the God that divides light from dark and day from night and so on. Then there is the God that rules over humanity and is a destructive tyrant or villain.
Christians may claim to add a fourth character to that trinity, which is the savior (who rescues us from the eternal tortures and tyranny of the villain). However, the savior is also a character in ancient Hebrew stories. Noah was a savior and there were many others as well.
The Old Testament has many references like this “there is no God but God and God is our only savior.” All three of the main branches of the religion of Abraham and Noah and Moses contain that idea in some form: Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.
So we have a trinity also in Hinduism: the creator, the sustainer, and the destroyer. However, none of them are the singular monotheistic God in Hinduism (Brahman). Instead, there is the father god (or creator), which has been given many names in many languages. Then there is the holy spirit, which divides creation in to it’s many facets.
What is that holy spirit? Spirit refers to breathing (like the word respiration). When humans use language, we breath out loud using magical sequences of sound. That is what some Christians call the “Word” or what in the Greek language is called “Logos.”
Spirituality is about the magical form of breathing known as language, which is the creator of all experiences. The Holy Spirit is given a different label in other languages, such as in the Hindu tradition.
Then there is the third member of the trinity. In Hinduism, it is Shiva, the destroyer. In Hebrew, the word Hashem may be used to reference the same ET that came down to earth from heaven as the leader of all fallen angels, who rules humanity as a tyrant. In other traditions, Neptune or Poseidon may be the name given to that “lower-ranking” member of the holy trinity.
What is common to all the stories of that creature? It uses a mysterious weapon with three prongs.
That God is said to rule over humans by using deception, confusion, and hysteria. At one time, when humans were getting too intelligent, that God cursed humanity by isolating humanity in to different groups that had trouble communicating with each other because of their different dialects and accents, which eventually diverged in to isolated languages.
Humanity was plunged in to spiritual darkness. The word diabolical comes from the Greek roots “dia-bolos,” which refer to throwing a label across something to hide what the thing actually is. Through diabolical uses of language to confuse humanity and pit them against each other, the ET ruler of humanity maintained supremacy through a policy of “divide and conquer.”
Some react to these comments or assertions with great hysteria and terror. Denial in language takes this form: “that should not be!” Then, those who have been programmed to experience hysterical denial can hysterically pursue reforms to make the world from how it should not be in to how the tyrant God has programmed them to think it should be.
So, through a diabolical policy of hiding things from humanity by programming them to relate to language hysterically, the great Diabolical ruler maintains naivete, confusion, and supremacy. By the way, the linguistic roots of “dia-bolos” are also familiar in Spanish as “diablo” and in English as “devil.”
But most humans do not respect language. Instead, they are terrified socially and so they relate hysterically to language (and spend weeks arguing over whether Celsius or Fahrenheit is the one true religion… or over which branch of Judaism is the best way to measure the freezing point of water: Islam or Christianity).
In their hysteria, they display social arrogance and distressed antagonism toward unfamiliar and threatening uses of language: “I know what is right and that is not right!” All of the militant fanaticists chant “we know what is right” as they march in to battle in the latest holy crusade against each other.
Some may promote antagonism but without the common distress. The Swiss bankers may say to the French that “the English are preparing to wage war against you” and then say to the English that “the French are preparing to wage war against you.” Then, the Swiss lend money to both sides and then, after the carnage is over, the Swiss send in their agents to advance their enslavement of the French and the English.
The French babies and English babies are both raised to relate to their regional government as their savior rather than their oppressor. The regional governments extract wealth from the occupied territories and the children are indoctrinated that “each of you already owe the government approximately $100,000 as of now, plus an additional 25% of everything that you earn for the rest of your life.”
Then, the Swiss citizens are given annual socialist benefits of $25,000 per year. Those funds come from the labor of the loyal slaves in the neighboring plantations of France and England (and the rest of the European Union).
Of course, if the Swiss are not effectively creating hysteria by playing the French against the English, then they may target a new hysteria, such as “an alliance of the French Christians and the English Christians against the emerging Arabic threat.” Or maybe the Swiss notice that the earth’s temperatures are once again approaching an ice age, which has never happened before in the entire history of ice ages, so in order to hysterically combat global warming, the Swiss insist on switching from Fahrenheit to Celsius (to reduce the number of degrees in hot summer temperatures down in to the 30s).
For those of you who are wondering “which form of anti-hysteria hysteria is the best way to attract social validation for pretending to save humanity from hysteria,” the obvious answer is 42. Or maybe that is the meaning of life according to comedic author Douglas Adams (who wrote “The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy”). Incidentally, the best way to combat reverse psychology was elegantly sumarized by the same author in these two words: “don’t panic!”
On the other hand, I read somewhere that Douglas Adams is in fact Swiss, so therefore we must be suspicious of anything that someone claims that Douglas Adams wrote. In order to save humanity from obsession, we must stop everything else and imediately find out the real truth about whether or not Douglas Adams hid his true nationality in order to distract from the fact that he was actually intentionally using language in order to influence the attention, perception, and behavior of other humans.
So, if you want to be a savior too (by rescuing the victims from the villains so that you can be glorified as a hero for eternity when you die), then please send nine cents in a self-addressed envelope to yourself. Yes, spend money on a stamp to send yourself nine cents. It works every time. At least that is what I read in an online science textbook, so it has to be true, right?
Do not try to negotiate with this system by sending a dime instead of nine pennies. Do not send one penny nine times. Send nine cents one time (whether or not you use a nickel).
If you fail to do this, even now that you have been given the magic ritual for removing the curse of eternal guilt, then you will deserve to suffer for an eternity either in hell or rural Texas. You will be racked by shame for knowing the right way to be heroic and patriotic, but simply refusing because you are such a spoiled brat and you hate God, by which I mean the holy trinity of reality, language, and Shiva, the devil ET with the three-pointed tongue, also known as Eve, goddess of Eve-il Villains.
René Lieberwirth It is my view that we actually are life expressed in living form. In the sense that I am not living life but actually life is living me.
Life spreads through lineage in humans. Now tell me, as an anology: When did the seed grown and fallen from the tree, taking root and growing as a separate tree, become “another life?” I see another expression of life passed on to a new form. In that regard the sense of individuality (life adhering to its form) seems overrated and I believe actually is a misconception. Life is an invisible force.
J R Fibonacci Hunn All linguistic concepts are limited and approximate. Some say that “gravity exists” and they can drop a ball from their hand to “prove it.”
I say “no, that is just a special case of one type of electromagnetic attraction, which really does exist, and then you can label it as gravity, which is imprecise and even grossly misleading, but also fine.”
J R Fibonacci Hunn Alan Watts occasionally used the analogy of waves within an ocean. Can you measure the waves without also measuring the ocean?
Language is a particular method for focusing consciousness (… Which is also energy). To focus on “those five waves” or “the entire ocean” is an operation of language, and language IS measurement!
J R Fibonacci Hunn The ocean does the waves (the waving). The earth does the ocean (and the wind).
Language (aka God) does all of these, but of course then some atheists like Amunaptra may come along and say “I do not believe in language. Can you prove to me that it exists?”
Then I say, “I have faith that language exists. If that assertion upsets you, then it is okay with me if you make a different assertion, like create a different linguistic concept or God to worship. By okay, I mean I will not try to prevent you. However, I do not mean that I will not send in the sheriff department to cleanse the empire of infidels.”😉
J R Fibonacci Hunn When there is no understanding of the simplest realities of language, then there can be hysterical arguments about “determinism vs free will” as if those two concepts are not simply patterns or models in language. Harry (Rene’s son) made some reference recently to the hysteria of people arguing over such issues.
J R Fibonacci Hunn People could hysterically argue over which of the following is the only right way to measure the total number of joints in both of my “ring fingers:”
Language is measurement and measurement is language. In other words, measurement is interpretative or creative.
Quantum physicists may consider that to be a revelation or esoteric or mystical or distinctive. No, it is the simplest and most obvious reality of language.
Language is used to measure. Language is the ruler that we use to measure.
We can use the scale of fahrenheit or celsius, or of kilgorams or pounds. We can use the metric or ruler of centimeters or of inches.
Language RULES. Language organizes perception. Language focuses experience in to being.
Language is divine- the only thing that is sacred whether or not people recognize it as sacred. What lives and rules is the divine Word or LOGOS or language. Just as every branch is entirely composed of “tree,” every form of life is formed BY language: tree, branch, wave, ocean, me, you, caterpillar, butterfly, the hive, the queen bee, etc….
Those who have contempt for some particular patterns in language can claim to be atheists, but… whatever. Either we can hysterically discard the claims by the Hopi (and many other cultures) that a sky god ET came down from heaven and told them where to place their villages, or we can respect that possibility, whether or not we deem it a priority to explore.
J R Fibonacci Hunn Back to the issue of measuring the force of weight, we tend to think that we are not moving. We think that weight is not a measure of momentum because we think “we are not moving.” Is that objectively true or only subjectively labeled “true?”
I am just sitting here, right? Actually, the high priests of mainstream science claim that I am spinning at an amazing speed as the earth rotates, plus hurling through space at a speed much faster than I have ever flown in an airplane.
Weight is a measure of momentum. A horse traveling at full speed has more “weight” on impact than a horse that is casually walking.
The gravitational pull of the earth on someone at sea level is not the same as when they are on top of a mountain. Why? Exactly why does gravitational force decrease with distance?
Why can the apparent weight of metal change when you spin it? Because spinning metal produces an electromagnetic field. Weight is electromagnetic because gravity is just one form of electromagnetic attraction. Weight is just an appearance or manifestation of electromagnetic attraction.
J R Fibonacci Hunn The electromagnetic weight of the magnets on top is pushing down on the lower magnets, forcing them closer together:
J R Fibonacci Hunn Magnets are electromagnetically polarized. Most things are not.
So, the gravitational electromagnetism BETWEEN a few magnets can cancel the gravitational electromagnetism between the earth and at least one of the magnets.
The electromagnetic weight of a floating magnet approaches “zero.” There is not any “net” electromagnetic momentum pulling it toward the center of the earth, so it has no measurable weight (at least while the counter-vectored electromagnetic forces are balanced / equal.)
J R Fibonacci Hunn Again, these two magnets in this position have less electromagnetic momentum toward the center of the earth:
J R Fibonacci Hunn Sound vibrations can also polarize the energy fields known as matter. When the electromagnetic polarity counters gravity, then sound vibrations cause levitation:
Next, here is a spider being levitated by an electromagnetic vibration at a particular frequency, which some physicists like to call by the following technical term: “sound waves.”
J R Fibonacci Hunn Can you feel the electromagnetic impact of a thumping bass or a thunder strike? Yes, the electromagnetic weight of sound can literally move an object… or even cause an object to shatter: