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?
However, energy does exist in a fundamental way. Energy can form in to a lasting structure of energycalledcarbon- though only temporarily.I am throwing in this point not because it is super relevant, but because it demonstrates how major linguistic presumptions used frequently in biochemistry are somewhere between imprecise and ridiculous. Trying to understand health from a perspective of 19th century biochemistry is like studying a dead fish and speculating about the ocean.It is true that different diets produce different results, but to focus on nutrition over breathing or electromagnetism is not based on the actual importance of nutrition to health, but from a desire for commercial profit… which is fine. Most people do not focus their diet on maintaining their internal fluids in accord with ancient oceans (such as lacking trace minerals and proper proportions of electrolytes). Many of us also entirely ignore the huge number of symbiotic bacteria that are essential to the health of our organism.
So, we can find short answers to simple questions, but those always lead to more questions. To the extent that I consider mainstream biochemistry to be a form of myopia (“out-of-focus nearsightedness”), my interest in a biochemist’s comments on my views may be much less than they expect or hope.
Imagine the most mature and wise person that you know. How does a mature person relate to emotions?
A mature person does not compulsively hide from certain emotions as “too disruptive to maintaining certain perceptions about their social persona.” However, it can be favorable to repress the display of certain emotions temporarily (like in the middle of a business meeting). Temporary repression of the experiencing of an emotion can also be attractive (like while driving on the way to catch a plane or while in the middle of performing surgery). Likewise, it can also be favorable to actively pursue the depths of each emotion, perhaps in seclusion or perhaps with a companion or chaperone.
Some groups of people will gather to encourage each other in their suppression of certain emotions, especially anger and fear and grief. Grief may be the most welcome of those three. As long as someone does not display too much anger or fear, grief may even be encouraged.
However, what if someone is grieving a specific incident that involves the suppression of their display of fear or anger? There may be intense stress placed on repressing certain experiences. In other words, some experiences (or the display of some experience) may be distressing.
How does distress arise? Is the distress a signal for an attraction to some new circumstance, such as a new social dynamic?
If someone “just needs to get away” from something or someone, is that experience something that for some reason should not ever happen? Why is it that certain developments are ever labeled as something that should never happen? Who places such labels and when exactly?
When in the midst of people who are actively repressing certain emotions of their own, then they may be terrified of even the smallest displays of that same emotion, for certain emotional displays can be contagious. Notice the contagious nature of laughing, of yawning, of crying, and even of startled screaming. Notice that in an antagonistic argument, there are at least two people who escalate from frustration quickly toward blame for their own frustration.
Why do people blame others? Blame is related to a perception of a threat.
Why would two people who perceive each other as a threat do something other than withdraw from each other? In some cases, both parties may perceive themselves to be trapped. Note that the perception may be quite accurate.
Antagonistic arguing is a type of activity that is repulsive (like two opposing pressures will repel each other). Blame may even be absent and yet still the antagonism or frustration is obvious. We can call that “passive aggression.”
Two parties may engage with each other in a dynamic of mutual derision or condescension, each one attempting to attack the other however subtly or overtly. Even if unstated, there may be a message in the tone of voice indicating “you should not be like that and I am angry that you are” (or disappointed, etc…).
Note that when two people habitually repress certain emotions and then interact with each other casually and frequently, such as in a marriage, then their repressed emotions may surface in that unusual, private context. They may even state their own surprise at the experience, like “I am not normally like this at all- this is not the real me” or “this never happened when we were dating, right!?!?”
The distress of habitual repressions can surface suddenly and in disorganized, disruptive ways. However, one of the greatest benefits of personal relationships may be their capacity to give us access to emotional functions that we have learned to repress.
Note that I used the term functions. Emotions are functions. Emotions are coping mechanisms.
Even conflicted emotions (such as the fear of displaying fear) have their value and functionality. The idea of “dysfunction” is about mismatch: when the emotion that one is “using” does not work well to produce whatever result is attractive.
Repression of emotion is the source of mismatches. When one experiences total freedom to display emotion, that is a relaxed state (in contrast to a state that is distressed, contracted, tight, frightened, paralyzed, etc…).
There are many ways to develop emotional sensitivity and emotional intelligence. Respecting all emotions as functions (or even skills) can be a sign of ripening maturity. All hysterias about “how the world must be for me to be okay” or “how life should never be” are just emotional conflicts that are constructed as habitual coping mechanisms for distress.
Emotions are sudden movements of electrical energy (like a flush of hormones). Emotions are motivation. The repression of emotion is the repression of motivation.
The two basic types of emotion are emotions of approach as distinct from withdrawal (or of attraction as distinct from repulsion). In a very general sense, all the attractive emotions are within the “family” of hope, as in openness or optimism. Note that the word hope has historical roots similar to the words optimism and openness.
On the contrary are emotions of repulsion or withdrawal. Those include fear, fright, terror, anxiety, resentment, contempt, grief, and many others.
All of these patterns or processes have value. If you are open to learning the value or purpose of all of the variations of emotion, then you are ripe for a rare level of maturity. I can help. Let me know if you are interested.
A long time ago, there was a group of people who sat together in a room listening to the screams of a woman. She was feeling intense pain as the middle of her body was being stretched in ways that she had never experienced. Soon, a baby would be expelled from her body.
But the people were not really there because of the woman and her baby. They were planning a new partnership. They called it “the empire.”
They would plan to form an small army and then threaten the other people of the nearby area and demand tribute be paid to them (as in taxes, protection money, or mandatory “health insurance” premiums). One man, named Noah, said “these other people must obey us or else their disobedience could result in the immediate destruction of the entire planet!”
While some wondered if that apocalyptic claim would be questioned skeptically or even considered ridiculous by a few people, Noah assured those assembled that as long as most of the people were shocked, terrified, panicking, and confused, they would quickly accept any explanation that was repeated with enough consistency. If a few of them questioned the popular ideas, those few would be avoided by the masses or even targeted as blasphemers or as possessed by a frightening demon called “insanity.” Not everyone believed Noah’s reassurances, but a few said “I suppose that he could be right, given how naive most humans are….”
So, the people considered what was being said and on occasion a new person made another comment. Through these conversations, some clear plans formed, including for the army itself.
Of course it was dangerous for just one or two people to go around and rob other people. Eventually, someone would resist. Injuries could be sustained by the assailants. The sequence of the robberies could be delayed for one of the participants to recover from injuries.
Further, there could be complaints from victims and claims for compensation. Some victims might seek revenge or even a return of the confiscated valuables (the “tribute” payments).
So, the group realized that the way that they used language must be carefully measured and regulated. Secrecy would be very important as well.
By their superior methods of communication, they would organize a much safer and reliable way of extracting wealth from the rest of the population. They would form bands and squads and units and divisions. They would wear special costumes to intimidate their targets. They would call themselves “soldiers” and “officers” and “licensed thugs of the exclusive, holy priesthood.”
Of course, they would also make a point to confront their targets only after planning their attacks, acquiring weapons, and training. Further, when they were not out patrolling, they would retreat to a military base with tall walls and look-out towers.
As time went on, a man named Moses said “in order to preserve the interests of our elite community, we must attack all of the neighboring Midianites and totally destroy them, except for their virgin females of course, who can be useful to the advancing of our civilzation.” This marked a new extreme in the conquests of the group. Not only would they extract wealth in regular increments of time from their “supporters,” but they would also invade and conquer other groups and then take all of their livestock and other possessions, killing all of them of any age, except for the virgin women.
The group also recruited new members to be their soldiers. They executed some people and left their corpses hanging in places where many people would see the bodies. Then, they went around door to door with their well-armed troops and recruited participants, threatening to imprison and then kill anyone who lacked enthusiasm and cooperativeness for their operations. They called it a “military draft.”
As time kept on keeping on moving on and on and on, new generations of leaders and soldiers came and went. Technology changed. Civilization shifted. New colonies formed and eventually the Hebrew empire developed some totally new branches, called Christianity and Islam.
One of the leaders of a local group said “It is very important that the masses be distracted, hysterical, and confused about the simplicity of our operation. First, their lack of comprehension will promote their active participation in risky activities as well as activities that have very little benefit to them and immense benefit to us. We will call them our human resources.”
Centuries later, another leader said, “If their own ally kills 60 million of their own people, they will not notice. We will tell them that their enemy killed 6 million civilians within their own country (and why should their question whatever number we repaet to them)?”
Another asked, “we should get them to argue with each other. We should get them to have so much devotion to the propaganda slogans which we publicize to them that, whenever they finally realize that their own governing system is not currently a match for the indoctrinated ideals, they will presume that something changed recently and the current leading figureheads are to blame. Then, they will exhaust themselves in reform campaigns to replace the current system of imperialism with a less imperialistic system of imperialism. They will campaign for honesty and equality and compassion.”
“But how we will deal with the inevitable deaths that could reduce morale and compliance to our system? I will tell you,” said the next prophet. “We will tell them that their dead sons are heroic patriots. We will have ritual parades and funerals referencing immortal souls. Plus, because of their dead son’s conformity to our imperial code of conduct, the fallen soldiers will be rewarded with eternal paradise in heaven, including the comforts of 72 of the Midianite virgins that Moses captured, as well as being re-united with their pet dog that died when they were 9 years old.”
“I admit that I like the idea,” said Saint Nicolaus, “but do you really think that humans are that naive? I know that I was never that naive myself!”
His wife, Mrs. Claus, said “you are right, dear. It probably will not work. However, let’s just try it one time and see how it goes, okay, sweetheart? Also, if you keep it up with the good behavior, I will give you a special present on Christmas morning!”
And the rest is history. I’m not just saying that to be corny, either.
The rest is actually history. History is a narrative created by the ruling class to promote certain values, interpretations, and actions among the herds of human resources.
Obviously, it should not be like that though. You should probably stop all other investments of time and devote yourself completely to saving humanity one by one from the existence of misperception.
In fear I used to condemn my foes
for being how they shouldn’t be
In shame I used to condemn my past
for being how it shouldn’t be
In fear I used to condemn the world
for being how it shouldn’t be
In shame I used to condemn all fear
while trying not to shake
For all you fake ass new age heroes
the glory is all yours
God must be jealous of your progress
and the merit you have earned
I wish I was cool
I wish I was you
I wish I was not how I was
my shame should be so much more fun
my life was ruined by my life
In hell, I must be here by mistake
In hell, I deserve so much better
In hell, life is never how it should be
In hell, the devil’s trying to blame me for my words
Yeah, blaming me for cursing this evil world
but he don’t even know me… I’m justified
I have a good excuse; I was victimized
So now I don’t have free will, only the evil do
In rage I used to complain all day
about how people shouldn’t be
For some, all they ever do is complain
and that’s how they shouldn’t be
In hell, I used to complain all day
In hell, I used to complain all day
In hell, I used to complain all day
but for all my tantrums, no one fixed a f@cking thing
What’s wrong with all these naive people
who don’t change their expectations
based on their observations
A key contrast is focusing on what one values for the future instead of just reviewing ideals about “what should have been” (and restimulating conflicted feelings). There may be a time for that, but only when it is actually helpful….
First, focus on the priorities for the future (including the immediate future). Focus also on what actually is happening and exploring what could happen and then how it would.
That establishes direction (aim). When the stated priority is “in focus” and “single-minded,” then exploration and experimentation naturally result.
If no action results, then perhaps there is some other priority active (or almost active). Also, when a particular type of action is working, then momentum naturally builds.
However, if someone simply wishes for isolation or rest as a priority, then initiative in that direction actually manifests. Except for that case, then action results which can generally be easily recognized by others. The actions may include conversations or not.
Once the focus in established and initial explorations are underway with some growing momentum, then, if relevant, that past can be useful. If commitment or focus fades briefly (after an initial surge of new momentum), then the past can be used as a resource to motivate the next actions that will produce new waves of momentum.
Even ideals about “what should have been” can be used to restimulate old repulsions. How is repulsion useful? Once a new future destination that is powerfully attractive has been identified, then repulsion from the past produces propulsion toward the new goal: a new launch. Once the exploration has momentum, then even intense repulsion (such as reminders of past frustration) will simply add motivation and energy.
Triggering the most intense repulsions may work best when momentum is actually surging… not when momentum is lagging. It is important to maintain focus, so if the past becomes a distraction from the focus and taking new actions, then attention to the past can be paused (stopped).
A clear future priority is essential to consistent innovation. The most sudden innovations often arise during relaxed exploration.
As for how big and how distant a priority to select, whatever actually works is what actually works. Action is the measure of a stated priority. If action stalls, then shift the focus, make it a bigger goal that is more attractive. Or, make it a smaller more immediate goal that produces consistent action.
In fact, when an initial goal has been targeted and achieved, that may be a good time to recultivate an old repulsion. While momentum is present but no new destination has been identified, the old repulsions can help to bring preferences and priorities in to focus.
It’s possible to have a system of government that seeks no authority over people, with no jails, fines, beatings, wars, and with voluntary taxation.The current form of government is not permanent. It’s only a reflection of mind in denial of love.
Instead of serving one another without expectation, the insanity of controlling, manipulating, competing and taking from one another has been given authority over the human psyche. In fact, the “normal” way to raise kids is punishment and reward. When kids grow up hearing things like “do as I say or else”, they learn to fit in with the current system of control, manipulation and greed.
How can you help reverse this trend? Simple! Just notice how you feel when the mind moves to make anyone wrong, to change them, fix them, manipulate them, take from them or punish them.
With your inner eye on the insane program that plays in the collective consciousness, the thoughts that are attracted to you will naturally become more loving, which will bring more peace to your personal interactions.
Such a loving presence naturally inspires the surrender of conflict in other people, and the world evolves accordingly.
Now is the time to live your vision of love, even if everything in your world seems to deny the possibility.
It is possible to have governments just like we have had before (including very loose primitive tribal hierarchies similar to what is observed in other species) and just like we have now. Technology allows for new innovations in the regulating and organizing of human resources.
Governments regulate crime and extortion and fraud. They systematically develop these patterns of interaction and then do their best to monopolize those activities and colonize new occupied territories, like the US still has bases in Germany and Japan after 70 years of peace and stability. Imperialist militaries do not plan to leave. They plan to stay. They also construct creative stories to justify their presence and publicize them to their “underwriters” (their taxpayers/ human resources).
Delusional idealism is programmed. The wealth of the wealthiest 1% in the world (those who make over $30,000 per year) is completely dependent on the cheap labor of the less privileged. If you experience any guilt in relation to such vast wealth, that is simply a reflection of cultural programming.
In certain cultures (or with some patterns of using language), there is basically a holy trinity of three roles. The key role is the savior.
What makes the savior a savior? The savior saves the victim from the villain. (Those are the three primary roles: savior, villain, and victim.)
What is the most common role for people in general to act out? Of course almost no one goes around saying that they are a villain, right?
Further, most people also know that they are not really a savior (and they are spoon-fed suggestions of exactly whom to identify as the archetypical savior, such as a historical personage or a current political candidate or “the government” in general). Who will save us from the latest crisis? If the government is the “go-to answer” for someone, then they are relating to the government as a savior (or at least as a prospective savior, like they “should” fill the role of being our savior).
Here’s some shocking news: sometimes governments do save people from specific dangers (such as a forest fire). However, no single government deserves a monopoly on being savior. By many observers, governments are “cast” in a variety of roles, yes, including the role of savior, but not just that one. For instance, one government can also be labeled as the victim of another government which is labeled the villain or enemy.
So, what happens when a “savior” does not fulfill their role (according to some critic)? Labels for the government may shift toward the label of villain. When reconsidering which role a particular government is playing, people may ask did that government “turn” on “we the victims?” DId the entire government betray us… or was it just a small group of “mega-villain” politicians, such as infiltrators that quietly invaded our savior government from some other villain government?
Notice that the same archetypes of savior, victim, and villain show up in comic books, mythology, pro wrestling, political news, and many other stories or narratives. These are very basic archetypes and any idea that these archetypes should not be widely used is actually a remarkably ignorant idea. These archetypes work. They trigger powerful emotions.
Why would someone arrogantly say that these archetypes should not be prominent? Because they are presenting themselves as “the savior of everything” and the next crisis that they will pick to show how they can rescue the world is… yes, the frequent use of three very common archetypes in language!
Of course, some people will compete over who will be the great savior of the world. They will argue over which crisis is the most pressing. Or, they will argue about which crisis is most pressing not in order to present themselves as savior, but as victim. They will also have their latest savior chosen and perhaps even displayed on their bumper stickers or t-shirts.
The most popular role for the average person is not savior and definitely not villain. So, what is left? If I definitely do not want to be villain and I would rather that someone else besides me (such as “the government”) play the role of savior, then what is left?
The most popular role for people to play is victim. However, not only do many people play victim frequently, but with great sincerity.
And that is the source of a problem that is truly tragic, at least in the theatrical sense. How do all of these people who are all struggling to avoid being cast in the roles of villain or savior interact with the other people who are “playing the victim?”
Well, obviously it is a competition, right? People compete over which crisis or victimization is the worst. They argue over which villains are the most terrifying. They argue over which saviors are the most capable. They may argue intensely over which victim is the most deserving of salvation.
They do all tend to agree that the most victimized one of all is whoever is talking. However, they all keep talking at the same time. They shout “you should not have said that to me!”
In their hysterical panic of competing for the greatest victim of all, they may end up vilifying each other. “Look, you don’t even recognize that I am the mega-victim here!?!?! By not enthusiastically validating my declaration of extreme victimhood, you are victimizing me! To add to all of the other crimes against me, which were the worst ever and far more extreme than the victimization suffered by anyone ever (such as a public ritual of human sacrifice by crucifiction), there is the added atrocity of failing to enthusiastically scream agreement that I am by far the worst victim ever.”
Some movie critics watching may ask… “does that actor really know that their performance is one of the worst victims that I have ever seen? Their tantrums yes are sincere, but it’s just not realistic. Regular people do not whine like that, do they? I mean… I certainly do not!”
So, some people compete for worst victim in human history. Others compete for best victim in a mini-series. Others compete to have their picture printed in the yearbook next to the words “most likely to be victimized in the future.”
Why all the competition? Well, playing victim obviously is a great way to test other people for their response. Will they respond defensively with “hey, look, I did not victimize you?” Will they respond with passive agression and say “I only did what I did because you were victimizing me?”
Further, there is an obvious underlying issue. People do victimize each other on occasion. At least, people take actions that are later labeled as “what should not have happened.”
If two little kids are caught “playing doctor” with too much enthusiasm and adult content, isn’t it predictable that one of them might say “you should not punish me… because I was a victim here!”
Or, if there is an actual incident of bullying, what if the one bullied does not want to admit their fear? What if they want to pretend they were not victimized?
In that case, then an old case of victimzation can get suppressed. The young victim is so terrified that they do not ask for help.
Then, in later years, they respond to a variety of interactions as if they were being victimized. Why? They are playing the victim to access those old experiences and release the old tensions. The tensions were useful to block the display (physically) of the emotions associated with being victimized.
All of these people competing for “biggest victim” have been victimized… but maybe just not lately.
How many people have ever been attacked by scurvy? Scurvy is a label for a medical condition and labels in language do not attack anyone.
But how many people have been attacked by cancer? Cancer is also a medical label for specific effects and labels for effects do not attack anyone.
How many people have been attacked by poverty? Poverty is a label for an outcome. Labels do not attack anyone.
However, people may be programmed to speak about a variety of labels as if the labels are victimizing them. People say things like “my cancer is killing me.” Whose cancer?
As for me, my scurvy and my baldness are competing for who will kill me first. The baldness has removed a bit of hair from a few spots on my head so far, which apparently is not fatal. So, the scurvy is way ahead at this point.
Keep in mind that the only reason that I experience the effect labeled baldness is that I have been attacked by the label “baldness.” I went to a hairstylist once who apparently thought she was qualified to diagnose me and she said “your head has been attacked by baldness.”
I told her “that is ridiculous. Baldness did not attack my head. My head is fine. Baldness only attacked my hair, causing my hair to go bald.”
She replied, “well you have some very bald hair missing from your head in a few spots. You should probably see a diagnostic specialist to find out which kinds of baldness has attacked, such as a receding hairline or just baldness that is a side effect of head-shaving.”
Anyway, as I was saying, she gave me a haircut so bad that I attacked it with a trimmer. But the reason that I brought this up in the first place was because when I was very young, I was severely attacked by baldness. The emotional damage was extensive. As a newborn, I had even less hair than I do now.
I need to vent now because in my youth I had so little social power that I was repeatedly victimized, deceived, betrayed, and also quite naive. Why did I have to be so naive when I was young? It’s just not fair. It’s like I was victimized by naivete.
It sure is a good thing that now I am saved from naivete. I pay attention to my own words so now I am magically free of every possible kind of naivete. Just to be clear, if you do not agree with me on this issue with sufficent enthusiasm, I will label you as a negative person and withdraw from you as much as possible.
I mean, how could you betray me by paying more attention to how I use words than I do? It’s just not right, right?
It is notable for the focus in so many churches to skip the Book of Numbers (in which the Lord threatens plagues against the Israelites, unleashes the threatened plagues, and then withdraws them once the Israelites are compliant). To leave out the background issue of the apocalyptic threats of an apparently non-terrestial ruling entity is very notable.
The great religion of global imperialism (including the branches of Islam and Christianity) really got going with the slaughter of the Midianites by the Israelites (as documented in Numbers 31). Also, in any sect of the religion of imperialism, we notice that there are different ranks of military officer, such as the different ranks within the Levite priesthood that rules over the rest of the Hebrew tribes with coercion and terror. At various ranks of the military secret societies, different ideas are revealed.
The New Testament is for “the taxpayers / inheritors of national debts.” The Talmud is not. The Zohar is definitely not.
Of course, first-hand accounts about ET contact are “sensitive information” which we can expect to be kept highly classified through the use of violence (as in silencing by death). It is also important that the herds consider certain subjects “forbidden” or “ridiculous.” That is essential to maintaining the social order of organized inequity.
More on the slaughter of the Midianites:
Isn’t hysterical fear the only thing that would ever drive people to want to “eliminate fear from their lives?”
Fear is what keeps you in your lane while driving. Stress hormones are designed for a wonderful purpose: to suddenly shift your focus to something that is potentially a very urgent priority in that moment.
In a culture of extreme hysteria, a strange thing can happen which is that people get so ashamed about ever displaying fear that they condemn it. They may say they are condemning the “foolishness of fear itself” but they are really condemning the display of fear.
Why do they react with such aloof paranoia if someone- maybe even a dog or a child- displays caution or fear? Because they are investing a lot of energy in to repressing their own latent anxiety and if someone else displays fear around them, that can trigger a cracking open of their dam to hide fear. They may panic.
So, maybe they join a Unity Church (I did) as they isolate themselves from “negative people” who are “too afraid.” Plus, that coping mechanism can actually benefit them to get to the point of less stress and eventually calming down from the various mainstream hysterias popular in a culture (even subtle, conceptual things like “a fear of inequality” or “a fear of injustice”).
As for the statement by New Age Guru Louise Hay about relaxing, I agree that people who have been experiencing a lot of tension can benefit from things like “breathing peacefully” (in contrast to the normal breathing rate of most people which is typically TWICE as much as ideal). However, saying “I am safe and secure” does not buckle your seatbelt or lock your door.
When people’s self-interest has been effectively confounded by social conditioning, then they “have no clear direction.” In that case, fear does not help move them toward a goal because they have no beacon.
Once the target is clear (like “I want to travel to a higher elevation immediately”), then when the flood comes, fear creates action. People who do not fear tsunamis or hurricanes because they chant “I am safe and secure” are delusional. Delusional disassociation is, once again, an amazing coping mechanism that works very well in some situations, but not all.
Why will you probably refill your gas tank sometime in the future? It might be because you are afraid of running out of gas.
Has anybody told you that it’s not the time