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 have found great value in reviewing a variety of ancient literature. I’m inviting a discussion on the value that you have found in any of the writings of the New Testament (as in specific segments). Feel free to comment on the verses that I cite or to cite others.
Before I mention a few verses, I notice that a common factor between them is humility. For me, I learned early in my life to be very competitive for social approval and validation. I learned to attempt to project levels of competence beyond my actual competence.
How does that relate to humility? A simple, natural approach to learning would be just to be open to learning. There would be no obsessive resistance to other people being aware of my actual levels of knowledge or skill. I would want appropriate challenges, not things far too boring or far too difficult. If other people had input (warnings or suggestions), I would be totally open (at least if I had some confidence in the expertise and goodwill of that person).
At some point though, I developed a kind of paranoia or anxiety about other people criticizing my abilities. The flip side of that is a kind of addiction to getting compliments (or congratulations).
In retrospect, I recall a very basic fear. I feared abandonment (and craved reassurance). To some extent, all that may be a universal concern, especially for young people.
So, I did not want be to left out. Plus, a great way of getting some people’s attention was to claim to be better than them at something.
As a child, I started to think of how could I get to be “the glory” of my parents (or my teacher)? How could I contribute to their social status?
I would learn what was considered good and what was considered bad, then attempt to conform my actions and accomplishments to those standards. Further, I would present myself as “someone who evidences the excellence of my parents” (and resist any claims that I was in any way ever a potential source of disappointment to them).
Again, I think that most everyone experiences that kind of thing to some extent. However, some of us are more obsessive and anxious about these issues than others. Further, over time, some of us shift from a focus on “bringing glory to our parents” to being in overt rebellion toward them.
That reminds me of a few bible verses right there. “Honor thy parents” is one. Another is “I did not come to bring peace to the earth, but a sword…. to divide a man against his father… against his own household…. whoever loves a parent or a child more than they love me is not worthy of me.”
That is from Matthew 10:34-37. See http://biblehub.com/aramaic-plain-english/matthew/10.htm
However, those are not among the verses that I have found so far to be the most valuable. One of those is quite famous: “rather than attempt to remove a speck from the perceptiveness of someone else, remove the log from your own perceptiveness.”
Well, let me just pause for a moment to note that on occasion I might have attempted to remove a possible speck from someone else’s perceptiveness (and yes even while my own perceptiveness was perhaps just slightly limited). Also, sometimes I politely offered to remove their speck.
But mostly I aggressively and condescendingly condemned their specks. I ridiculed and harassed people for offending me by either (1) failing to display sufficient loyalty to popular ideas or (2) failing to display sufficient contempt for popular ideas.
Maybe I should give some background to all that. In my efforts to be the treasured glory of my elders, I resisted the idea that I could ever be naive. However, if by some amazing sequence of events there was ever a reasonable doubt about my absolute mastery of any subject whatsoever, then that would be shameful.
Is it really so shameful not to be a master of all things? Not at all. However, after years of hysterically and fanatically defending mainstream hysteria and fanaticism, a common response is to then maintain the basic behavioral pattern of hysteria and fanaticism, but just in devotion to a new glory: the glory of shaming mainstream versions of hysteria and fanaticism.
Was I still a hysterical fanatic? Sure… but at least I was no longer shamefully a hysterical fanatic of the mainstream type. I graduated to being an *independent* hysterical fanatic.
The short version of that story is that being an *independent* hysterical fanatic can involve pointing out a whole lot of specks in the perceptiveness of others. It can be something of a “full-time commitment.”
However, I would occasionally notice that anti-hysteria hysteria was just not as much fun as I might have hoped. Fortunately, I was no longer obsessed with bringing glory to my parents. On the other hand, constantly heaping contempt at mainstream ideas and institutions… just was not especially rewarding.
Basically, it repulsed people. In other words, it led toward less socializing (more privacy), which I do greatly value.
However, in recent years, I just overtly value my privacy. That is much simpler than putting so much energy in to repulsing “shameful fanatics.”
I appreciate that I now live a life in which I have the discretion to withdraw toward privacy “more or less whenever.” So, for that, I am quite grateful.
The shift in my life circumstances has involved many other people. Day after day, I experiment with rediscovering and communicating my appreciation for them (and by the way one person in particular comes to mind).
Also, I am repeatedly grateful about the warnings against vanity, naïveté, hysteria, and fanaticism that I first found many decades ago in the Bible. For instance, in Mark 7:6-8, Jesus explicitly quotes Isaiah’s warnings on these subjects from the Old Testament. (See http://biblehub.com/aramaic-plain-english/mark/7.htm )
Over and over, warnings about contempt are made in the New Testament. Occasionally, I witness contempt on display (including displays of anti-contempt contempt on Facebook). The more that I witness contempt, the more grateful I am, including for the massive reduction in contempt that I have experienced in recent decades.
So, before I conclude, one more section of the New Testament that I respect a lot (on the subject of humility) is the parable of the two builders. One builder had good intentions and was sincere and certainly committed, but yet was naive, inexperienced, and foolish. Another builder knew that it was worth a lot of extra work to clear away the loose sand and dig down to the bedrock to build a house on that rock.
If you do not know the rest of that story, search online for “the wise builder” and then notice what happens to each of the two homes “when the storm comes.” I will move on to say more about the metaphor of clearing away what is on the surface.
Regarding all the presumptions and biases that I have been programmed to internalize, I respect them. I am humble about all the time that I have put in to “houses built on sand.”
I have defended mainstream dogmas and doctrines and hysterias and fanaticisms. That was my vanity (my concern for receiving social glory).
I have also competed to evidence how I was so gloriously collaborative (a “good” person). I have gloriously (vainly) displayed my contempt for competitiveness, although actually my contempt was itself the extreme of social competitiveness. I recognize that now.
I have certainly displayed contempt for some of the same mainstream idealism and pseudo-science that I used to vigorously defend. That was also vanity.
Is an obsession with social reassurance like building a house on sand? I get the connection.
As I divest from addictive habits of attracting reassurance that I am socially good (glorious), I get closer to the bedrock. As I stop resisting criticisms and complaints, I get to experience a hugely rewarding thing called humiliation (a.k.a humility).
On a foundation of respecting perceptiveness, I am grateful to find new layers of bias in my own patterns. I release my old hysterical “anti-bias bias.” I have biases. Some biases I respect as useful and some biased I question as potentially “optional.”
I build a completely different kind of “house.” Storms come (as in challenging developments). Some people panic and display contempt and then vigorously resist criticism or unfamiliar ideas.
I can relate to all of that. Unfamiliar ideas can be confusing.
For those who worship traditions and dogmas, unfamiliar ideas can disturb foundations built on sand. For those who passionately display their contempt for various traditions and dogmas, I can respect the intensity of their distress.
What if I dig down below vanity and learned persona and programmed pseudo-science. Will I find some solid bedrock on which to build a calm stability?
One who is already humble cannot be humiliated (or manipulated with flattery). Those who desperately grip the chains of vanity will struggle with denying their vanities until they have to good fortune to have their vanities collapse.
Ideally, may your vanities suddenly collapse in to a pile of laughter (or at least giggling). However, if your vanities in any way seem appealing to you, I totally respect that. Perhaps one morning you will wake up and some do those old familiar vanities will simply be… boring.
Intense repulsion toward vanity might be a sign of something. Hysterically displaying contempt for vanity might be a sign of something, too.
In the world of introspection, who is best suited to dig down through the sand of my biases and vanities to the bedrock of perceptiveness? Should I blame my parents or the teachers of my youth for failing to keep me free of vanity? I think it might be quite hilarious to attempt to blame them (at least now that so many of my old biases have been disillusioned). I will be sure to let you know how that turns out for me.
Beware of those who are convinced that they have no further capacity for naïveté. Beware of such extreme vanity. Respect humility.
The last part of this post is the “juicy” content of mine. I am also including the interactions that led up to my “juicy” content.
JGH posted this:
JR wrote: Would it be important if the majority of firearm deaths (in the US) are suicides?
JGH: Is it important how many people use their car exhaust to kill themselves?
MB: Are there really 35k firearm deaths in 2014? Seems a bit on the high end.
JR: (to MB), the CDC reports that in 2014, there were 21,334 deaths in the US by firearm suicide. FYI, I presume that the motor vehicle deaths stats are typically only for collisions / crashes.
MB: So if you subtract the folks who were going to find a way to kill themselves, leaves you with around 10k… So yeah… Alcohol, tobacco and firearms vs nabisco, Kraft, and coca cola…
JR: The number of people killed by “errors in the administration of medication by health professionals” is far higher than all of the above things combined. These are just statistics being used to advance political agendas.
JGH: Oh shit!
BE: They also include firearm deaths caused by people not allowed to own a gun, by regulation. But more regulation should work, right? 😉
JGH: Wonder how many car wrecks are from people that had a suspended license?
PW: They always use suicide to artificially inflate the numbers. Remove suicide rate and it’s another story. Remove gun access from someone who is suicidal they will use a rope, jump from a bridge, over dose. An engineered metal tool that shoots lead projectiles isn’t the problem with suicides. That’s why someone that reports as suicide gets a trip the hospital and gets lock down; They will use whatever.
So now that we’ve identified death as a concern, looking at alcohol related deaths maybe we should regulate that more as well? There are far more alcohol related deaths. Maybe reinstate the old progressive idea of total prohibition? If not, why? Isn’t mitigating death our objective or is this really just about making people not fear other people having guns?
DL: More strict gun control doesn’t work. More thorough weapons training along side a thorough mental evaluation, let’s say yearly would go a long way towards solving the problem.
FM: Why don’t they regulate alcohol? Never quite understood why that killer instinct liquid drug is not more regulated.
JR: They do regulate alcohol. They even criminalized it for a while, but there was far more cash flow for them to regulate and tax it than to criminalize it. The license to sell alcohol is over $10k per establishment.
No one cares about death statistics except for promoting political agendas. The number of deaths per year from abortion are far above all these things. But death itself is not the issue.
The issue is power. If the statistics are shocking to the public, then the government can present the stats in a campaign to regulate some new thing, like if traffic fatalities are high enough, then make a law about seatbelt use and fine people for not wearing them.
A slave owner makes rules to preserve the lives of the slaves because the slave owner benefits from the Human Resources. The governments that extract wealth from their Human Resources have the same basic concern, except with less actual interest in each individual.
To a slave owner with only 50 or 100 slaves, like Thomas Jefferson, he may know most of them by name. He wants them to be compliant and productive and orderly, so he feeds and houses them (like socialism) but also makes sure that they do not have easy access to guns or the keys to their chains.
Governments care much less about their individual Human Resources. The give each of them a number. They also train the youth to grip on to mental and emotional chains on their own (and carry them around everywhere), then send $10k or $20k per year to the government.
Did you kill another of the government’s Human Resources? That is a crime!
Did you kill a lot of enemy British soldiers in a war? Here is a medal.
Did you kill some Native American children and bring their scalps in to the government office as proof? Here is a modest incentive to bring in more scalps in the future.
Did you realize that the government put out a “hit” contract on a foreign leader, (who was probably democratically elected), then go out and assassinate the designated target? If so, there might not be a medal and a public ceremony, but there may be a very big payday. As part of the pay-off, the government might even cancel all of your tax debts or wipe out your seven felony convictions.
Ever heard of “Miranda rights?” That was a case involving a man with the last name of Miranda. He raped some woman and later told some police investigators that he did.
Eventually, he was released from prison (and his conviction was canceled) not because he was innocent, but because the investigators failed to inform him that he has the legal right to decline to confess even if he was guilty. How did the lady that he had raped feel about his conviction being overturned and him being released? I am not sure.
but let’s not talk like the government as a whole is interested in protecting each of us personally. Governments extract wealth from their Human Resources by force.
If the government can get away with criminalizing something and imprisoning a few million people for ten or twenty years, that is good for them. They can tax the public $40- $50k per year per inmate. The more that they can provide convincing justifications to extract more and more from their Human Resources, the better for their business. They want to keep their Human Resources dependent and compliant, right?
governments want the masses to be generally demoralized, but then boost morale a bit by celebrating how generous and brave the government is in regard to protecting the public from all these dangerous people who were arrested for things like unlawful possession of marijuana. The idea is that there is hope for salvation, and the government is that hope. Also, there is a general paranoia that if the government disintegrated, then how would the city water in the city of Detroit be kept clean?!?!
On 2/17, I checked my ranks on Bing for phoenix garage builders and found 4 results on page 2 (the highest was #13). Today, 2/20, I have 5 results on page 2 (but the highest is 19, so my 5 are 5 out of the bottom 6 on page 2).
I added AZ to the search to make it phoenix az garage builders and now I only have 2 results on page 2, but they are 12 and 14.
The word order matters too because I have 3 on page 2 (highest is 16) for garage builders phoenix. For garage builders phoenix AZ, I have 4 (highest is 15).
For garage renovation phoenix az (a less popular search), I have 3 results on page 1, #1, #5, & #9. For garage addition phoenix az, I have 6 on page 1: 1, 4, 6, 7, 9, &10.
For garage construction phoenix az, I have 7, 8, & 9 on page 1. For phoenix az garage construction, they are 6, 7, & 8. For phoenix garage construction, they are 6, 9, & 10.
One city to the east is Scottsdale. For scottsdale garage builders on Bing, I had 4 on page 1 on 2/17.
The one in purple at the bottom was brand new on 2/17. That fell off the 1st page by 2/20 (so I now have only 3 on page 1).
On to Google, for Scottsdale garage builders, my highest result is #2. (Only 1 on page 1). For garage construction scottsdale, mine is #8. For garage builders scottsdale, mine is #3 (though that is a different page than when searching for garage builders scottsdale).
Back to Phoenix, for phoenix az garage construction & phoenix garage construction & garage construction phoenix az, mine is #4. For garage construction phoenix, mine is #3.
Also #4 for garage builders phoenix az, garage builders phoenix, phoenix garage builders. Oddly, for phoenix az garage builders on google, my highest page is way back at #12.
On Jan. 21, 2017, DL wrote:
Obama added 9.3 trillion to US National debt in 8 years (10.626 to 19.961) & George Bush Jr added 4.9 trillion in 8 years
J R: Basically, they both doubled the prior debt in 8 years.
Here is a 100-year chart of PER CAPITA national debt (shown in logarithmic scale):
That 2nd chart suggests that “things recently are actually pretty close to the prior trends.” Other than world war 1 and world war 2, the blue line is pretty steady, right?
In fact, if we further update the chart to adjust for inflation, then suddenly the whole thing flattens considerably, too.
However, there are other ways to present the long-term data that do suggest cause for some alarm (or at least caution and concern). Here is a chart of US national debt relative to Gross National Product (GNP) – as well as some perhaps arbitrary analysis by the creator of that chart:
J R:Oo- to answer Michele, I will disagree with Gretchen‘s above answer. Technically, as in legally, the debt is owed by the US government THROUGH the private banking syndicate of the Federal Reserve to all those who own US treasury bonds.
For instance, if Queen Elizabeth of England or a Saudi prince own $2 trillion in US treasury bonds, that is the creditor to whom the US treasury / US government owes the debt as specified in the contract.
(Further down, I say more about how that relates to US citizens. Briefly, as we all know, the US government extracts wealth primarily from a very large group of people known collectively as “US Citizens.” They are the main population that is targeted for the collection of the debts entered by the US government.)
J R (still): More or less, the Federal Reserve was created in 1913 by European bankers (like the Rothschild brothers through their agent in the US, JP Morgan). It was created as a way for the US to borrow its way in to invading Europe on behalf of the lenders (including the German “Windsor” dynasty that had recently ascended to the throne of England. Incidentally, that family also included the kings of a few other countries in Europe).
That invasion took place and is now part of what we call World War One.
J R:By 1933, there was a formal default (bankruptcy) as the US government was forced to criminalize possession of gold by US citizens, which meant the US citizens were forced to “sell” their gold to the US treasury in exchange for “Federal Reserve Notes.” In early 1934, those federal reserve notes were devalued by 41% overnight (actually, at the stroke of midnight on Jan. 31, 1934).
More details are here, plus some related historical documents: http://Az-Az-Az.com/1/1.php
J R: Then, based on our claim of the debt owed to us by our human resources, we go over to some dudes who claim to rule over a particular band of the earth near the equator or south of the equator or whatever- not like we really care. Then we all write down some words on paper and organize some school curriculums and mainstream media programming to promote the collection of the debt claims that we just invented and imposed on our human resources.
We realize that if we give our human resources the right to vote and to control of a tiny fraction of the operations of our wealth extraction business, then that layer of democracy (on top of the ancient foundations of our extortion business) will increase compliance rates dramatically.
J R: Currency is not the issue either. It is total trivia (at least in regard to the main issues raised so far).
Consider: If Vince Lombardi and I declared that you need to pay your debts to us with chunks of silver or gallons of cod liver oil (rather than with debt-based currency), that would do nothing to change the fundamental mechanism of the wealth extraction system, which is military coercion.
But if Vince and I went around trying to collect on those debts that we claim that all these people owe to us, people might refuse. They might question the origin of the claimed debt (allegedly owed by them to us). So that brings us to a key issue, which is not the words used in the propaganda, but the actual experience of intimidation (from perceived military superiority) which leads people to panic and then accept the ideas of the propaganda because their logical capacity has been crippled by adrenalin (intimidation).
So, indoctrination only works so well because of the [perceived or actual] vast military superiority of gangs like the free masons and the Jesuits and the USMC (no offense to veterans intended).
J R: So, should I tolerate that the sun is older than I am? Sure. Should I tolerate that the moon has more mass than I do? Sure. Should I tolerate that Tom Brady is currently richer than I am? Sure.
Again, “tolerate” is a word that is sometimes used in psychological warfare to shame, to incite rage, to spiritually cripple. I will tolerate Sean’s use of the word tolerate. And I may be very condescending and antagonistic about it… or rather humble and casual.
J R : If someone has been programmed to be ashamed of the history of the US government and related enterprises (UN, UK, NATO, the tavistock institute etc), then they may have a sense of disempowerment merely at the knowledge of the continuing operations of those enterprises. I am no longer burdened by clinging “heroically” (egotistically) to such shames and contempts.
…or to the social salvation and the “holy glories” of “bringing down the evil empires.”
J R Fibonacci Hunn In general, I was merely making some simplistic assertions about the nature of the US national debt and various business enterprises for the accumulation of wealth and social power, such as the Federal Reserve or Maryland or the EU or the Persian empire or the crusades or “the Gambino crime family.”
Take a label like “holy” and add it to the word crusades (to say “the HOLY crusades”), and that will change nothing of the history. Same if you say “the HOLY empire of the Medici crime family.”
The claims made by the people conducting those business enterprises are just claims. If the Apaches invade the Hopis and then say “the Hopis owe us 100,000 sheep as REPARATIONS to offset the cost of us to invading and slaughtering their warriors (and then placing our political puppets to rule the survivors),” then that is… perhaps a rather unremarkable event in the context of the last several thousand years of human history.
When using a phrase like “divine will,” most people will immediately presume that I am thinking in terms of two isolated kinds of will, with one kind of will being divine and with the other kind of will being something other than divine. To a certain extent, that is correct (yet notably imprecise). So, to be more precise, there is a very inclusive category that I am calling divine will and there are distinct subcategories within that larger category, such as statements that people make about divine will or statements that people make about other kinds of (“less than divine”) will.
Divine will is a reference to all of what is actually happening. One of the things that can be happening is that various people will be talking about their own isolated will (“my will”). Their claims about their ego’s will or their social persona’s will may be in conflict with what is actually happening (or in conflict with other people’s statements about their personal will). Their whole commentary on “will” is based on presumptions about some fundamental reality to their own social persona or projected identity.
Beyond various statements about personal will can be the subjective experience of willingness or motivation. The experience of motivation is not a primary topic of this exploration, although it is notable to contrast any experience of actual motivation (as in actual emotion) as entirely distinct from what anyone may or may not say about their experience of motivation or will or intention or purpose.
So, when it is the divine will for someone to make statements about their intentions, then that is what happens. Some fraction of statements about intentions may be made in distress or terror. Someone may project claims of intentions that they expect to be to their advantage to project. They may even attempt to distract from or deny other intentions that they expect it would be best to keep secret or unnoticed.
Divine will does not need to be spoken. Maybe people will say that certain actual things are “not divine will.” Maybe people will make comments about outcomes that are allegedly not present yet are somehow “divine will.” All the comments that are actually made must be divine will or else they would not be made.
Further, all instances of speaking (in regard to absolutely any topic) are divine will. Deceptive statements and misdirecting statements are divine will. Silent action (as in anything from unannounced breathing to unannounced typing) is divine will. Sincere statements are divine will, even when naive or delusional. Honest, perceptive statements are also divine will.
Simply put, the words “divine will” can just refer to a recognition of what is actually happening. If someone has been confused about something, but then reaches a new state of understanding, then say can say that they have finally perceived divine will.
Consider that a huge amount of social interaction is to suppress the recognition of divine will. Those in the lower-ranking positions of any social hierarchy, such as all children, may be targeted with the programming of various doctrines, value systems, and paradigms. Then, after a central committee agrees on some curriculum and programming to present, instructors can be trained and then paid to go out and present the doctrines in social rituals of indoctrination.
The children can be presented information to memorize. They are pressured to focus on the information and then compete with each other to blindly repeat that information with the greatest amount of consistency with the instructor’s delivery.
If we label the instructor as a science instructor, that does not make them competent in science. That labeling does not imply that the children will be verifying or critically examining any of the doctrines presented. Indoctrination rituals focus on memorization and blind repetition. The children are programmed with bias about what is important and how to relate to or label whatever they witness.
For instance, they may be taught of two verbal categories such as matter and energy. The materialist model is that matter is real and fundamental, while energy is one possible quality of matter that comes and goes.
Or, a child may experiment with sunlight, a magnifying glass, some dry wood, and some water. They may discover that the wood is just a temporary arrangement that is relatively stable. The wood does not burn if simply exposed to sunlight (in contrast to human skin, which can actually get burnt just from sunlight exposure).
However, if the magnifying glass is used to refocus or reorganize the energy of the sunlight- to concentrate the field of energy in a particular way- then the sunlight can radically alter the wood. The wood can ignite and then radiate as heat and light, eventually leaving some lines of rising smoke and a pile of ash.
Where did the heat of the burning wood come from? What created the energy of the flame?
The dry wood was always a condensed field of energetic potential (which was then reorganized in to a less condensed form, radiating as heat and light). Matter is just one possible state of energy.
For instance, electrons are just energetic fields. The atomic compound known as carbon is just a set of energetic fields temporarily bonded together. If a proton is added to the compound known as carbon, we can call that new compound nitrogen. But the carbon did not “go anywhere.”
There never was some fundamental presence of carbon. There was just a stable temporary compound that we can label as carbon.
The materialist model implies (or presumes without considering any other option) that there are many isolated fundamental realities. There is the reality of carbon and the reality of nitrogen, but the two realities are completely distinct. Unfortunately for devotees of that model, that model is rather absurd.
Carbon exists to the same extent that a fist exists. It is just a temporary arrangement. It can be disrupted by the removal or addition of a type of energetic field called a proton.
Carbon is only a form. It is not a fundamental thing.
In fact, matter is not fundamental. Matter, such as hard crystalline solids and liquid crystal plasma gels, is just a particular category of forms of something fundamental.
So, divine will can include the organization of the capacity for language. Through language, conceptual models can be formed which classify matter and energy as two fundamentally distinct types of reality. Or, energy can be considered a very inclusive term that includes all condensed material formations of energy, such as an ounce of uranium or a gallon of propane or a pound of firewood.
Energy is fundamental. All materials are just relatively stable fields of energy.
A pound of firewood is not a very concentrated form of energy. A gallon of propane is more concentrated (and also rather unstable or flammable or volatile). Other forms of energy are extremely stable, yet also extremely concentrated. Only a very specific kind of energetic interference will release the energy that is condensed in an ounce of a certain isotope of uranium. Different isotopes (forms of uranium) may have very different levels of volatility.
How do we know that uranium and carbon are not fundamental? Because there are different subcategories of each broad category. There are three natural isotopes of uranium, plus there is “depleted uranium” and so on.
There are also different isotopes of carbon, like carbon 12, carbon 13, and carbon 14. All of those are carbon, but each of them are distinct. They have distinct properties energetically and physically, such as mass. Only carbon-14 is radioactive (unstable).
So, carbon and uranium are categories of energetic formations. There are subcategories of various types of uranium just like there are various types of carbon.
In general, some energetic formations are quite stable, like the most abundant forms of the compound carbon (carbon-12 and carbon-13). Also, the isolated field of a proton is quite stable. Other energetic formations or fields are rather unstable, such as what are labeled as a neutrino or a positron.
Some formations are quite simple, like a chunk of coal or diamond. Other formations are amazingly complex, like an apple tree or a mushroom or a mammal or an international system of wealth redistribution.
In language, people can be programmed with the idea that their personal will is somehow isolated from or even contrary to divine will. There are a variety of experiences that someone might have and some of those can be selected to glorify and others to vilify or demonize or suppress.
In popular indoctrination rituals, children can be programmed to socially project submissiveness and conformity to social norms. If the FDA is glorified as an operation of unbiased political integrity and scientific infallibility, then the FDA can be used to pressure the masses to make certain presumptions about what is possible or impossible.
If the holy FDA announces that scurvy is a powerful demon that can possess humans, then the idea may be accepted simply based on presumed credibility (and repetition by an authority that is presumed to be credible). Really, the idea is being promoted through bribery and intimidation.
“Accept what the holy instructor presents and you will be socially rewarded with validation. Question what the holy instructor presents and you will ignored or even ridiculed or expelled, bringing shame and stress to your family. You do want our class to have the highest grade-point average and win the pizza contest, right?”
But is scurvy really a mysterious and incurable demon that possesses and then eats people? The social hysteria around the possibility of social persecution may distract most people from such an inquiry. We may be programmed that scurvy is terrifying and dangerous and incurable. If those details are “on the test,” then an effective indoctrination ritual will program the target population to fixate on only those details, obediently memorize them, then blindly repeat them.
The masses may be programmed in regard to how people should always be. For instance if people should always be honest, then it would be a serious accusation to claim that the FDA might be very slightly biased or even occasionally just a tiny bit imprecise in their published doctrines.
Through a phenomenon known as the Stockholm effect, a socially powerful group can impose its military and economic might on another group, often resulting in a display of submissiveness, loyalty, and even devotion by the oppressed group. If people should ever experience shame or social anxiety, then it would be a great violation of social expectations to socially display skepticism or curiosity in regard to the precision of the doctrines publicized by a holy tyrant such as those people doing business as the FDA.
Is it divine will for the FDA to exist? If the FDA exists, then that is divine will.
Is it divine will for the FDA to persecute those who attempt to challenge the social and legal dominance of the FDA? If that is what happens, then that is divine will.
Is it divine will for public indoctrination rituals to glorify holy rebels and then program the masses that, if they ever discover that the FDA is not entirely operating how people should always operate, they should protest and campaign and reform to make the FDA back in to how it allegedly used to be or otherwise in to how it should always be? If that is what happens, then that is divine will.
The masses are programmed to vilify certain patterns of activity or historical figures. They are also programmed to glorify certain social personas and then project those personas as their own. In other words, the masses are programmed to operate according to certain narratives or scripts or prescriptions or roles.
If people have been socially programmed that it is heroic and glorious to reform social institutions, then many will. If they have been effectively programmed to protest whatever patterns of behavior are defined as injustice, they will. If they have been effectively programmed to campaign for whatever is defined as justice (or even as “divine will”), then they will.
Should programming exist? Should rituals of social indoctrination exist? If it is divine will for something to exist, then it will exist, at least as long as it is divine will for it to exist.
The recognition of divine will is a rather simple thing. It is accepting reality as being however it is (without any bias toward how reality allegedly should be or any bias away from how reality allegedly should not be). That may be an extremely rare development, at least in certain modern cultures.
Why? Because if may be divine will that extremely effective methods of programming the masses are invented and implemented. The systematic obscuring of divine will may be one of the most obvious realities in regard to the observable results of various social institutions.
“Only a certain portion of what is should be. Only a certain portion of what should be is.”
The targeted populations are trained to focus on certain issues, to memorize and study those issues in programmed ways, then to blindly repeat various doctrines about those issues, then finally to expect social validation for their displays of loyalty and conformity to the holy doctrines of the dominant social institutions. They are given a script to memorize and a role to perform.
Note that classrooms do not have conflicting authorities. The central committee presents the instructors with the curriculum and the answer keys. The instructor simply validates answers that match the relevant answer key.
Another obvious sign that someone is deeply programmed by social indoctrination is a resistance to the fact that there are a diversity of opinions about a a diversity of topics. If there is a display of hysteria that some people apparently do not think that transgender rights is the single most important issue for all 7 billion humans on the planet, then that is a sign. Or, if there is a tantrum of ridicule to shame people who are totally ruining everything by focusing way too much on media celebrities or pro athletics or pop music, that is also a sign.
If there is a social projection of the idea that people should be a particular way and should not be a particular way, that is a sign. If there is a ridiculing of systems of indoctrination because “they should not exist,” that is a sign. If shaming others and bullying others should not exist, that is a sign. If there is a sincere hysteria about how taboos should not exist, that is the hypocrisy of a taboo against taboos.
Irony is not hypocrisy. If the pope stands on the balcony of a massive castle and says that both inequality and coercion are morally wrong and anyone who does not condemn both inequality and coercion will be executed in a holy ritual of public human sacrifice, that is ironic. It is only hypocrisy if the pope believes the script he is reading.
If an actor in a play screams that “dishonesty is wrong and people should not pretend to be other people who they are not,” that is ironic. That is a person pretending to be someone else. The entire context of a theatrical production is that it is all staged. It is all a pretense. It is all scripted. It is all fake.
However, if the actor does not know that he or she is just an actor, that is hypocrisy. If the one reading the programmed script does not recognize the script as a script, that is hypocrisy.
Divine will is a very simple thing. The recognizing of divine will may not be so simple. If the divine will is for the socially powerful to program the masses to obscure or vilify or deny divine will, then that may be exactly what is happening.
Once there was an actor playing the role of pope. The actor walked on the the fake balcony and said very passionately to the audience “people should not pretend to be someone that they are not. Theatrical productions not only should not use fake balconies, but should not exist at all. The FDA is a holy government agency that has an absolute monopoly on scientific credibility because the scientific method is a very mysterious demon that only possesses a very small group of people, all of whom are either FDA officials or have made massive bribes and/or campaign donations to those who regulate the FDA. Also, insincere parody is wrong and shameful and so only people who have been issued an FDA license for parody should be taken seriously as comedians. Unlicensed comedians must be immediately executed in public rituals of human sacrifice or else all of humanity will be harshly punished for eternity by a three judge panel composed of Santa Claus, Saint Peter, and the ancient Egyptian deity Ma’at, who also weighed the souls of the recently deceased to determine whether or not they would be allowed in to heaven (but for thousands of years before her name was later changed to Saint Peter).”
FALSE: Anubis was NOT the one who made the final judgment. The final judgment was made by the goddess Ma’at, who is known for her “scales of justice.”
Some modern temples of the ancient Goddess Ma’at (also known as Justitia, etc):
The following is a reply that I made on someone’s private wall (about grieving in relation to some “parental breakdowns”). For me, this is a REALLY valuable lesson:
I am grateful to have had the opportunity to feel embarrassment in relation to certain details of my personal history. Humiliation nourishes humility.
In regard to mating, I have been eager and naive. As a father, I have been delighted, furious, and many other things.
Culturally, most people are programmed in certain ways and so mating and parenting become a kind of trap. We go along “just doing what we should” and then we may suddenly recognize how unprepared we are for what we have “set in motion.” So, the cultural programming sets the trap (or sets lots of different ones), and then most of us eventually get caught (a little or a lot). That can lead to radical new practices like… requesting the assistance or guidance of mentors.
[This one paragraph is not from the original post] For instance, in a national socialist system like the US, what if elderly people are dependent on the government for social security benefits and then President Castro says “you must have paperwork to show that you are current on all your mandatory vaccines or else we will cancel your benefits?” Well, then most people who are well-informed will do what they can to minimize their inflammatory responses and then do what it takes to continue their benefits. Obviously, the government is not going to publicize the traps as traps. They may not even spring the trap until years or decades after it is set…. [back to the original post…]
I am glad that my son’s mom is as effective as she is, but I have also experienced guilt about many details. She has pushed guilt toward me, but I already had the desire for my son to have a certain kind of life (which he often did not). [If any guilt that she pushed toward me “landed,” then that would be because…] The guilt is rooted in the [not yet fulfilled] motivation (plus a fear of recognizing that I might still have some things to learn about how to fulfill on the motivation).
So, the guilt can be something that points me to my motivation… or I can follow the cultural momentum to blame others for my past experiences of guilt. “This should not be this” is such a fundamental coping mechanism of denial.
Whatever motivations that I have for the welfare of my son (or his mom or anyone else), those are what they are. Cultural programs about what those motivations should be are … also just whatever they are.
Instead of the guilt narrative of “this should not be this,” I can ask “what is it that I wish to produce?” Guilt is a signal of distress. Rather than simply pretend not to be distressed, I can recognize the appeal of calm and stability and security (and perhaps seclusion / privacy), then consider which boundaries I prefer to assert and maintain.
Often, the guilt is from “letting someone cross a boundary that I pretended not to have in order to avoid complications [or actually to avoid simplifications].” So, I am grateful for the embarrassment and guilt. I have been guilty of failing to hold my boundaries. So, the importance of establishing boundaries can suddenly “come in to focus” for me.
“No, that can’t be possible.”
“Well that is a perfect example of denial right there.”
“No, it isn’t. I mean… maybe it would be in other cases, sure. But in this particular case….”
“There it is again.”
“Ok, whatever…. if you are not willing to have an intelligent conversation without changing the subject… because I do not even see how this is related to what we started talking about… then you are forcing me to end our friendship because you always interrupt me and you always want to dominate the conversation and never even let me finish what I was trying to… oo, yeah like that one time six years ago when we were talking on cell phones while I was driving through that area with bad reception and you kept interrupting and saying that the signal was bad and asking me to repeat myself. I hate that. So, yeah, your disrespectful attitude is just too frustrating. I can see that you obviously do not have good intentions here, so I am seriously done with you!”
“What? What do you mean by that? Don’t you realize how much I have put in to trying to… oh Jesus… you really like trying to piss me off, don’t you? Well it won’t work this time. Your little passive aggressive act is just over!”
“No. absolutely not! I can’t even stand talking to you. You are always such a bully. Plus, That one thing in particular about how people who are in a cult will always call the cult something else besides a cult does not even apply in this situation. You are not even using the real definition of cult.”
“How would you define a cult?”
“Oh Jesus, please Stop pressuring me. I don’t need to know the exact definition, but I do know that you are just pissed off about basically everything and trying to impose your views on me again. Like that thing you were saying about questioning established science: that is just insulting!”
“Ah, what I said about confirmation bias… okay.”
“Yeah, That was really offensive and insensitive and… and ignorant.”
“And for you to say that the instruction of students in a science classroom is an indoctrination ritual is totally stupid. Sure, the central curriculum committee selects the subject matter to present to the students. That is obviously how it should be and you talk about it in a condescending way like there is some other better option. And of course the basic process is for the students to pay attention to whatever the teacher presents and then memorize that info and repeat it without critically examining the accuracy. I get all that, but YOU are missing the point. It is SCIENCE! Yes the students are getting rewarded for giving the correct answers that match whatever is in the answer key. No, the instructors are not actually personally verifying any of what is in the answer key. That is not their job though! So it is really arrogant of you to call it an indoctrination ritual. Again, it IS science!”
“It says so right in the title of the textbook, right?”
“Yeah and you just do not respect the important service that teachers provide. You would not be such a jerk about this if you were ever actually a school teacher.”
“Hmmm… hey, Do you remember the school that is just down the hill from the intersection of central and 7th Ave?”
“Yeah, across from the bank. That is the one where you used to teach, right?”
“But what does that have to do with anything?”
“Yeah, and you seem all fixated on the location like that is somehow important. Who cares? You can seriously ease up on the bragging about being a teacher. Maybe all that arrogance is why you don’t have more friends. Have you ever thought of that? Plus, if you knew anything, you would know that it was that school that had a scandal last year when a former student tried to burn it down. That school is an embarrassment and your constant attempts to distract me are so typical. This is why I can’t talk to you!”
“It must be frustrating.”
“Not being able to talk to me.”
“I didn’t even say that I am not able! It’s YOU.”
“So… would you say that you are annoyed?”
“Yeah uh huh! And you are constantly trying to upset me, aren’t you?”
“See, you just did it again!”
“Jesus, you are such a brat!”
“Well, I do my best.”
“And you don’t even deny it! You go around like you’ve never done ANY thing wrong. You act all superior. Ask any of my friends and they will tell you exactly what I told them: that you are an embarrassment.”
“And a brat, too, right?”
“So smug. And what really makes me furious is that you are always trying to compete with me and put me down. But I am so DONE with you.”
“Why are you smiling?”
“Yeah, you are! Hell, you look like you are enjoying this. You don’t have a compassionate bone in your body, do you? You should really try some kindness for once! Oh great… now you are giggling. Typical. So typical…. what EXACTLY is so funny to you? I just can’t understand your… your stupid… stupid… ugggh your stupidity!”
You and I have been deeply influenced by it and so have your family, your classmates, your coworkers, and your neighbors. If you get frustrated about their fanaticism, that is it again. You have been programmed to expect all these fanatics not to be fanatical. Plus, you have held to that expectation fanatically.
So, the existence of your own familiar culture is most apparent either when interacting with someone of a very different cultural background or with a very young child. Have you ever been annoyed with how other people raise their kids differently than you? That is it again.
The key issue is annoyance. Under that is actually embarrassment.
If you were just an honest snob who preferred your culture over all others, then you would not be annoyed about violations of your cultural expectations. You would just be disappointed and dismissive with no drama.
The drama is all about distracting others from your embarrassment. For instance, if you can’t believe that so many people voted for a political candidate that you dislike, is that simply disappointing or is it a trigger of embarrassment and shame (and you can’t wait to tell “everyone” and “justifiably” ridicule the “ignorant fools”)?
That is a display of loyalty to your favorite subculture. You justify condescension because “those people are part of OUR culture and they should KNOW better?!?!”
At least, that was a popular presumption within your subculture. It was so popular that, surrounded by others loyal to that subculture, we avoid actually exposing our favorite presumptions and dogmas to, well, reality.
So when reality does not match the dogma, then drama erupts. And it is like we have no control of it. The drama just pours out like juice out of a squeezed lemon.
“How could reality be so disrespectful of my presumptions and preferences?!?! This is so embarrassing. Reality is so arrogant that it seems to think that I should update my presumptions just because my presumptions and reality do not match. I am furious with… whoever I can be justify blaming for this annoying and embarrassing tragedy.”
Sometimes there are actual tragedies. There are things that can trigger overwhelming grief (as distinct from guilt and rage).
But I remember once when I was pretending to be grieving and I was actually relieved. Two cops were standing in my kitchen (waiting for me) and one said to the other “did you see how relieved he looked?”
That “set me off.” I was furious. Why?
The circumstances were hugely stressful, but familiar. And those circumstances were shifting. And I was SOOOO relieved.
But I was not “supposed to be” relieved. I was supposed to be grieving.
So I politely invited the cop to refrain from undiplomatic chatter with his partner. Only I might have used a few curse words… and it might not have been polite or an invitation.
However, my display of fury worked. He “zipped his lips.”
I was simply embarrassed to be so relieved. They saw that I was relieved, which apparently surprised them. (If I said more about the background, then their surprise plus their relaxed chatting with each other might make “total sense,” although I will leave out any further details here.)
But me being relieved was not itself a problem. Me being embarrassed to be relieved was not itself a problem. Them talking about it was a problem for me. There were not only three people in the house at the time (the two of them and I) and for me to safely “escape” was favorable. For them to talk about me seeming relieved was more than annoying to me. It was terrifying. It was an indirect threat to my safety.
So, they zipped their “loose lips” and the situation proceeded as would be expected. The cops were apologetic and kept quiet.
I had instructed them in my cultural expectations and they conformed. Whether or not I was relieved, their official version of the story would be “it was all a bit tragic, but not especially notable.”
Or, maybe it was the end of something tragic and a new beginning. Maybe it was a huge relief… but YOU better not say anything about that unless *I* bring it up first.
Anyway, you know how millions of people are complaining about how “our culture should not be how it is?” That is, once again, just them displaying fanatical loyalty to a popular presumption.
Our culture is however it is. You can pretend it is a particular way and then filter your perception to maintain a fanatical glorification or fanatical vilification of it. You can respect it. You can be open to discovering it. You can appreciate it. You could be proud of it.
Or you can be dominated by it and chase the persona of the holy rebel who heroically makes it from how it should not be in to how it should be. You can even attempt to prevent any other cultural patterns from advancing.
We can post memes and parade down the street with signs that say “our culture should not be how our culture should not be.” Then we can argue with the fanatical idiots who mindlessly chant that “our culture should be way more like how our culture should be.”
Neither of those two groups are really doing much to cultivate any particular culture. However, maybe those folks are just relieved to be surrounding themselves with “like-minded” folks. Maybe they do not actually have a spontaneous surge of grief over a tragedy. Maybe they are just looking for justifications to display a particular emotion that they have been “nursing” (nourishing) for a while.
And that is all fine. A snob may “look down” on people “being dramatic.” We might even be impolite and condescending, but we won’t be especially interested in most other people’s opinions… because we are actually snobs. We are not just pretending to be like so many others (who then get all upset that other people do not agree with them and congratulate their superior culture).
Oh, and yes we know that in certain cultures it is hugely popular to say that the worst thing that someone could ever be is a snob. For us to quietly prefer our practices is a huge insult to those who are certain that their own sense of loyalty automatically obligates *everyone* to either fanatically support their favorite position or at least respect their position enough to fanatically argue and ridicule their favorite position. To generally show no interest in their opinion or even to dismiss their favorite issues as insignificant… that is a rebellion against the entire system of divide and conquer controversy that is programmed by popular media!
“Don’t you even watch TV? Don’t you know how popular this controversy is? Everyone has a strong opinion about this issue!”
Yes, I even have the TV on right now as I type this. Yes, I know that controversy is suddenly very popular, at least on certain TV networks. No, I do not think it outrageous how biased certain networks are lately. I do not think it is even unusual.
I’m not especially addicted to being outraged. How about you?
I assert that science is a simple, logical way of thinking. In scientific inquiry, there is a great respect for data, especially similar data from a large number of independent sources. If a variety of researchers are all using different methods and instruments to collect a bunch of related data in a variety of ways, then if they all notice the same trend, that is notable, right?
Above is a chart showing data from the entire month of October 2016. Before I address how unusual the data charted above is, I want to draw your attention to a couple of things that are very obvious in a quick glance at the color patterns.
First, much of the chart is pink, right? That was pretty easy so far.
Next, the largest concentration of blue is in a very specific area of the chart. We can agree that it is in the upper right, correct?
This next point is a bit less obvious. Notice the spread of dark red areas. If I asked you to identify the horizontal range where most of the dark red is, what would you say?
Did you notice that a lot of the red in the chart is near the horizontal mid-line of that chart? That is in the “tropics” of the planet, which are areas relatively close to the equator (and far from the poles). We can even specify that much of the dark red in the tropics is either away from land or near an ocean coast.
Again, I will address the significance of the above data soon. First, I add some context to the blue region in the upper right of the above chart. One limitation of the above chart is that the colors are in little blocks. What if we could see a much more precise “map” of temperature variations?
The image below shows similar data but from a different period of time (last week). Also, this a polar map (from above the north pole). Note the shape of United States in the left lower left.
The colors obviously cluster in the center (red) and in the upper right (purple). That data is not for the actual recorded temperatures but for the deviation from normal for the average temperature FORECASTS for 5 days. So the local temperatures that were forecast on November 17 (for the 18th to the 22nd) are shown above.
What is the main point of me showing these two charts? I actually intend to emphasize first not the unusually warm areas, but the unusually cool areas across northern Russia (Siberia).
Why did I want to emphasize that? Because I am very skeptical of the well-publicized notion that there is a global trend of warming. Is there a trend of warming across MOST of the globe? According to the data sets that I have reviewed, yes.
However, most of the globe (such between 51% and 99%) having a trend of increased warmth is not the entire globe (as in 100%). That brings me to my next point about science. In scientific research, there is great value on precision.
For example, if you have a tricycle (with 3 wheels), does it make a difference whether “all” of the wheels are working or only “most” of them are working? What if the front wheel on a tricycle is significantly warped and cannot rotate, but “most of the wheels” are working fine? Is that any different than if ALL of the wheels are working fine?
So, notice that many people prefer the term “climate change” over “global warming.” Why? One reason is that if there is a clear trend of Siberian cooling (like month after month and year after year) while most of the world is warming, then that variation might be important.
In the title of this article, I mention the word “spin.” Some scientists attempt to measure changes in the spin of the earth.
Imagine a spinning top (as in the toy). The speed of the spin could change eventually. Also, the toy will begin to wobble before it succumbs to the pull of gravity.
By the way, if you are familiar with the term “anti-gravity,” but do not know an example of it, then spin a top. The rapidly rotating top has a “low center of gravity,” but when that center of gravity rises (as the spin slows down and the wobbling starts), then the “anti-gravity” forces (countering gravitational pull) decrease until gravity “knocks over” the top.
The force of gravity did not change from one minute to the next. The anti-gravitational force is “created” by spinning the top, but that eventually decreases. We could even say that the vortex of the spinning top creates a “lift” that pushes up on the lower portion of the top. Like with a tornado or hurricane, spinning the top creates a “low pressure system” over the top plus a “high pressure system” under the top (“lifting” it like wings create “lift” for an airplane or even for a bird).
Sometimes, it is totally fine to use imprecise terms. However, scientists are at least interested in the issue of precision. If they are being imprecise, they typically want to know it, not ignore it or deny it hysterically.
In the media and elsewhere, people use the term “spin” to refer to a bias (however intentional) that favors a particular way of presenting or filtering information. It is not wrong to use Celsius or Fahrenheit, but many people relate to certain aspects of reality as if “there is only one right way to measure or relate to” a particular subject. It is not wrong to show a satellite image from the north pole or one from the equator. In fact, it is remarkable how argumentative people can be about defending a term like “global warming” (OR attacking it).
Do I prefer the term “climate change?” I do. I also prefer to use Fahrenheit over Celsius.
That might seem like an unrelated comparison. However, each degree in Fahrenheit represents a smaller change in temperature than each degree in Celsius. In other words, Fahrenheit degrees are smaller (as in more precise).
Is it “wrong” to use the term “global warming?” It is less precise than other options… maybe even much less precise. However, NASA data shows that since 1880, the last 12 months have featured 10 of the warmest months on record. The other 2 were 13 months ago and 17th months ago (as in last year).
This NOAA chart below shows the specific trend in annual temperature averages. Above the chart, you can see the data showing that the overall trend is an increase of .007 degrees Celsius per year (.07 per decade).
If the years prior to 1910 were excluded, the average increase would be even larger. Plus, from the mid-1940s to the late 1970s, the trend of “global warming” did not just disappear…. it even reversed!
Further, I did not research whether the data charted above is for “the entire planet” or for the US in general or what. I honestly am not especially interested in the subject of global warming or CO2 greenhouse effects. However, I am interested in the long history of changes in climate (as well as certain specific details like changing sea levels, especially sudden rises in sea level… although I read last week that the land mass of part of New Zealand was raised by about 2 meters in about 90 seconds… see the new shoreline in the photo on the right).
So what is going on with the spin of the earth? Is the spin destabilizing with an increasing wobble?
I think so. I also think that the earth’s rotation is very different from a toy spinning on the top of a table. The wobble of the earth can increase or decrease. For instance, if some other interplanetary object is on a trajectory that decreases the distance between that thing and the earth, then an object with strong electromagnetic or gravitational influence can temporarily disrupt the earth’s spin.
Exactly how much evidence has been collected about changes in the wobble of the earth? I am not certain.
I do know that if Siberia is unusually cold, plus northern Canada is unusually warm, plus the tropics of the entire planet are repeatedly experiencing bigger variations in temperature (higher highs AND lower lows), then that might be worth investigating. Could you imagine any other possibility of a clear evidence of an increased wobble? (Note that the chart at the beginning of this article only shows a pattern of lots of record highs in the tropics for October, so my main point here is that there is a lot of data available for anyone who might want to explore this hypothesis further.)
I also know that it is remarkable to me that many people seem very emphatic about the specific claim that not only is there a trend of global warming, but that it is caused by human activity. Further, many of those people seem not to be informed about systems to measure the fluctuating temperature of the sun or other planets.
Are cyclic ice ages widely accepted as part of geological history? Are there a lot of measurements being made of the temperatures of other planets, the sun, and even the moon?
To me, at least some of the “global warming advocates” seem uninterested in scientific merit. Is there such a thing as a “greenhouse effect?” Yes. However, is every fluctuation in temperature automatically evidence of a greenhouse effect?
I invite you to put your hand near some metal that has been warming up in the sun and see if you can feel the heat. You could even take a charged 9-volt battery and touch it to your tongue and feel a surge of heat.
Most changes in temperature are not related to CO2 levels. If that is in any way shocking to you or causes you to overheat, then I invite you to chill out by the method of dramatically reducing CO2 levels in your bloodstream.
(Actually, that kind of dramatic reduction in CO2 is called hypocapnia, as in hyperventilation or hypoxia. It can kill someone by suffocation within a few minutes. By the way, the way you would “cool off” overheating brain cells would be to RAISE the Co2 levels in your bloodstream, not to lower CO2.)
I digress! Let me come back to a specific hypothesis about global warming (AKA “climate change”). My understanding is that salinity (saltiness) effects the freezing point of water. For instance, if you have ever heard of throwing salt on snow to make the snow melt faster, then that is about increased salinity reducing ice levels (with NO change in temperature OR levels of CO2). The salt changes the electrical conductivity of the water (saltwater), which changes the properties of water crystalization (AKA “freezing”).
So what if salinity levels are changing in oceans worldwide? Could that effect ice levels? Could that also effect humidity levels (the amount of moisture in the air)?
“October 2016 Arctic sea ice extent was the lowest in the 38-year satellite record, according to the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC)…. Amazingly, temperatures in the Arctic have spiked in mid-November to even higher values, and were 20°C (36°F) above average north of 80°N this week. The unusual warmth in the Arctic has CREATED [or is otherwise correlated to???] an unusual amount of open water, which has provided high amounts of moisture to the atmosphere. As a result, widespread snows fell in regions where it was cold enough to snow; snow cover in the Northern Hemisphere in October was the third greatest on record.”
That author asserts that warmth caused less ice / more unfrozen water. Could it be that altered salinity caused less ice, which caused more humidity, which caused higher temperatures?
I personally am not certain. Plus, the average temperature in parts of the Arctic were more than 30 degrees Fahrenheit above prior norms. Further, the factor of salinity may not explain the much lower temperatures in Siberia (but a wobble would explain that).
I also know that the unusual rise in fall snow in recent years has been a seasonal shift. In other words, spring snow has been much lower (in addition to fall snow being much less).
So it is not that more snow overall is falling, but that it is just falling sooner. In the charts below, you can also see that in the 1970s, there was a pattern of snow falling much later, with several Novembers of much less snow (plus Aprils and May with much more).
Further, I know that the authors who mention salinity may consistently present a very different causal sequence than those who (like the author quoted above) published no mention whatsoever of the issue of salinity. Note that I am not a climate scientist. However, I am intrigued to read about wild swings in ice coverage.
“Just two years ago, in September 2014, Antarctic sea ice extent hit the highest values observed at any time of the year since monitoring began in 1979. We’re now seeing the lowest values on record for mid-November” 2016. (Note that it is springtime there, not fall.)
I am aware that I did not present any specific evidence of a change in the wobble or spin of the earth. However, the first two images at the top (relating to average temperatures) would correlate with an earth that is currently tilting Siberia away from the sun and northern Canada toward the sun. If a tilt is what is happening, then temperature data from the south pole should generally “mirror” the temperature data from the north pole. Someone COULD explore that hypothesis (and I am confident that many people have, although it is not the function of the mainstream media to present unbiased information, but to systematically bias people’s attention toward certain issues and away from all others).
In science, one of the ways to compare different models of cause and effect is to issue projections (predictions, forecasts). When a model consistently is more accurate at predicting the future than all other models, we might give attention to that model. When a researcher or related group of researchers (like all using similar models / theories) is consistently more accurate than all other forecasters, what about then?
I am going to relatively abruptly conclude and simply present a few charts that I find the most alarming of what I have seen so far. I might share some specific comments on which researchers and models have been more accurate at making forecasts. My main point here is that if the speculations of people like Al Gore have been wildly inaccurate while the speculations of certain less publicized authors have been consistently precise, then maybe those who are interested in actual science will start to consider the issue of which authors have been consistently precise. If you would like more information on which forecasters are, as far as I know, the most accurate / credible, you are welcome to make a comment on this blog like “keep me updated” (or just the abbreviation “kmu”).
Note the red line in mid-November 2016 (and how far it is below the other 37 years shown). Would you like to know who forecast this late 2016 drop in total polar ice (both poles) of EIGHT standard deviations?
This blue chart shows the recent plunge to eight standard deviations below normal.
The green line of Antarctic ice shows a recent plunge (in just the last few months). That plunge in particular is what is going to correlate to some very unusual climate changes in the next few months.
Note that I am presuming that some of the people who have forecast all of the above effects (as being due to a combination of salinity and wobble) will continue to be accurate. None of their predictive models are based on CO2 levels or the greenhouse effect.
Further, what if the changes in salinity and wobble are both due to a very specific interplanetary development that is easy to confirm? What if the salinity issue is even caused by the wobble?
Would you be interested in knowing what the most credible researchers are expecting (and what to do about it to minimize detriment and maximize benefit)? If so, again, simply make a comment on this blog of “kmu” (and if you type “kmPu” then I will keep you PRIVATELY updated, making a point not to publish your comment- though that will only work for people who have never commented on my blog).
Special thanks go to DB and SD for bringing this information to my attention.
We can contrast the term animosity with the term affinity. Animosity is a mode of social competitiveness.
It is not the physical aggression of a lion attacking an antelope or a group of hyenas intimidating the lion to take what remains of the carcass. There are many forms of physical aggression without animosity, including all forms of play fighting as well as practices of physical discipline or punishment as well as a pilot dropping a bomb on a group of civilians. There is typically no personal animosity in those cases.
There are different levels of danger or destructiveness. There may be great concern for maintaining the welfare or the other or no concern at all. But, with animosity, there is a focused concern on intentionally harming the other (or at least disturbing them).
So animosity can include physical violence, although animosity is fundamentally social. animosity Typically involves an attempt to destroy or injure or someone socially, like to damage their reputation or long-term wellbeing.
Of course, Animosity can also lead to threats or acts of physical aggression. The aggressiveness would have a specific intent though. In pure rage (or a predator simply hunting prey), an aggressor would likely just want to drive off or kill their target. However, with animosity, there may be a more socially cruel intent, like to injure someone physically and with the goal of causing them lasting embarrassment or shame, making sure that they survive and face social scrutiny.
The desire is to socially crush the target. Further, animosity is always rooted in some perceived past justification. For instance, Revenge always involves animosity.
I am envy someone’s results in an appreciative way (like admiring their results). However, if we add some animosity to that admiration or envy, then it is jealousy.
If we fear what someone might do, that alone would not lead to animosity, for that is simply fear. However, if we resent what we wanted them to do but they did not do, then we may invent a cover story to attract social validation of an underlying animosity. Maybe we present (or project) a story of fear about what they might do. However, if there is fury and bitterness covered by a story of fear, then that story is either only part of the bigger picture or… entirely a pretense.
So far, we have been exploring the topic of animosity without much reference to resentment. Basically, animosity can suddenly arise and then suddenly dissolve.
Resentment is the social cultivation of lasting animosity. Resentment is social because it involves telling one or more stories repeatedly in ways that result in animosity. The stories can be presented to an audience (which could even be the target of the animosity) or simply privately rehearsed for later use (like journaling or thinking about some past trigger).
Next, let’s add a deeper attention to the issue of respect. When we respect resentment or animosity, what does that mean?
We are open to exploring it for what it is. We may have some ideas already about what it is or what it should be or what it should not be, yet respect implies a preference for actual observation over pre-existing presumptions or expectations or speculations.
Here is an example. Two siblings of different ages were at a shopping mall with one adult and the older sibling said “can I go over to the pet store and pet that puppy?” The adult said “yes.” So the older child went and pet the puppy (and the other two went in to the bookstore next door to the pet store).
So far, there is no animosity or resentment, right? But then the younger sibling said “do they have snakes in that pet store?” The adult said “I told you that we are going to avoid all snakes because some snakes can hurt you.”
That was not the response the younger child was hoping for. For one thing, the response was not even directly to the question that the child had asked.
So, the child displayed some frustration and said: “do they have snakes or not?” The adult said “you did not take a nap yet today, did you?”
The child said “snakes are SOOO cool, but puppies are stupid.” The adult said “I will tell you what is really cool… winter!”
The child said “no, snakes are way cooler than winter. That is why I hate puppies.” The adult erupted in to laughter.
The child said in an accusative tone “why are you laughing? You probably think puppies are so great, don’t you? You don’t even know anything about them. Jamie got a new puppy and it jumped all over me and I hate puppies and I hate you, too!”
The adult calmly said “I understand what you are saying… and I am going to take that as a no in regard to the nap.”
“We are not even talking about naps,” the child protested. “Jamie should not even have a puppy. It is not fair. Pat’s dad has a pet snake and it is so cool. I should have one too. It will be my best friend and then I will get a tattoo of it on my arm like Luke Skywalker.”
Again, the adult burst out laughing. “But This is not funny,” shouted the child.
The adult, who was the grandfather of the two kids, said to the child “do you know what the word spoiled means?” The child said “I am not talking about food. Yes I know that Food gets spoiled. So Yes I know everything about spoiled. You are the one who clearly does not know anything about snakes. You think that you are cool, grandpa, but you are NOT cool. You are very uncool.”
By the way, grandpa had a tattoo of a snake on one shoulder. Apparently the child did not know that.
So what was going on in that story? How was it related to animosity and resentment?
Obviously, the child was very combative. We could say that they were trying to socially bully (as in attempt to cause distress for) the grandfather. If the child could trigger enough guilt in the grandfather, then the grandfather could submit to the child to avoid further harassment. Basically, it was a variation of throwing a tantrum.
There were a few displays of animosity, too. First, the child said puppies are stupid and then claimed to hate puppies twice. However, the only specific puppy mentioned was Jamie’s new puppy. In fact, the animosity was not really toward all puppies or one puppy, but toward Jamie, who allegedly “should not even have a puppy.”
People only socially compete with those that they perceive as threats. Further, it can matter if there is an audience or not.
For instance, if Jamie wanted to intimidate the new puppy, Jamie might not directly do it. Rather than physically intimidate or bully the puppy, Jamie might do it socially (through someone else).
Jamie might go to an adult and loudly complain that “this puppy needs to be taught how to behave properly.” If Jamie does that in the presence of the puppy (and with the attention of the puppy on what Jamie is doing), then that is displaying an indirect or social threat to the puppy. If the puppy is submissive to the adult to whom Jamie is presenting a demand for intervention, then Jamie is openly presenting a social threat to the puppy (right in front of the puppy).
It is not a secret demand for intervention. Jamie may even be very deliberate about making sure that the puppy is aware of the process.
Backing up to the first example, there was the animosity in the statement that “Jamie should not even have a puppy.” The speaker presents a conclusive awareness of whether or not Jamie should have a puppy, then declares their verdict.
However, Jamie does not have any lasting importance. There would not likely be any resentment toward Jamie (just a fleeting moment of convenient animosity).
If there was resentment, it might be from the child toward the Grandfather. The grandfather does not approve the child’s request. Clearly, that could become a pattern, right? If the grandfather does not fully unravel the child’s animosity, then resentment seems a likely result. In fact, even if the grandfather submitted to the child’s blackmail tantrums and bullying, the child might still resent the grandfather.
Or, the grandfather might resent the child or other people involved. “Who raised such a spoiled brat? I bet it is my daughter-in-law who is to blame! And How did I get stuck with this horrible afternoon? I can’t believe that I was tricked in to this. They did not even give this child a nap yet today. What kind of parents would treat their kids like that and then have so little respect for ME?”
Consider that resenting someone is an activity or practice. It takes ongoing verbal activity.
Further, it is a coping mechanism. More specifically, it is a “freeze response.”
Let’s explore that idea now. With fear, there are a few variations. Fear is a concern, usually sudden, for potential danger or loss.
The most common fear response is to withdraw or flee. If there is a possible threat and I am far away from it, then I can either investigate it from a safer distance or simply stay away.
Another popular fear response is to physically fight (or at least argue). When a creature would prefer to flee, but is not aware of a favorable escape route, they will predictably fight.
In the story above, the child was interested in attracting the support and guidance of grandpa. The actual outcome in relation to a snake might have been interesting to the child for a few seconds or a few minutes, but obviously is not a core need (like hunger or sleep). The child did make reference though to the snake becoming their “best friend.” Maybe grandpa would be an even better friend than a snake, right?
So, the child was arguing with grandpa. They were fighting socially against grandpa in the hopes of bullying grandpa in to being their best friend. It might not be the best method, but the underlying desire makes sense. Plus, that method might work well… at least for a while… at least with someone as interested and perceptive as grandpa.
As for fear, there are two other common responses (besides fight and flight): freeze and fake. We will skip the response of fake for now and simply note that it is just a special case of the freeze response.
With freezing in response to a possible threat, there are two occasions that lead to freezing. First is the case when there is a major possible threat and the primary options of fleeing or fighting do not currently seem relevant. That is a “stiff” freezing that can quickly shift to fighting or fleeing.
There is also a more casual or relaxed “freeze response.” That is when there is a perceived threat or potential loss, but it is not major but only minor. We could even call that a “pause response.” There is no freezing stiff in terror. There is just a pause and extra care or caution or alertness.
Basically, that is being “frozen” to simply wait to see what else happens. It is being attentive.
The more extreme freezing has elevated stress hormones and an interest in finding an opening to flee or fight. And resentment is actually the verbal activity of maintaining an elevated stress level and looking for an opportunity to fight.
Let’s explore that further now. In the example above, the child displayed animosity toward their grandpa a few times. For instance, The social invalidation of “you do not know anything about ____” was not a respectful, plain statement of a sincere perception, but a dismissive, condescending, or even harassing statement. It was social animosity.
However, it was not resentment. Resentment would be an hour later though, like still complaining about how stupid grandpa was (and “always is”). Or a decade later, there could be a resenting of how grandpa behaved in ways that he allegedly should not have done.
In other words, grandpa did not do what the child expected or imagined. In fact, whatever grandpa does, it is easy to construct a later speculation about exactly what he should have done. That is often an important part of the practice of resentment.
To simply imagine what the child might have liked grandpa to do is not resenting. To sustain a personal state of stress and animosity by constructing a complaint about what grandpa should have done is resentment.
Resenting grandpa is done when there is no interaction with grandpa. Maybe grandpa is across the room. Maybe grandpa died thirty years ago. Resenting grandpa is entirely independent of grandpa.
Resentment is a coping mechanism to maintain an internal state of stress by focusing on particular historical details in particular ways. Why resent grandpa thirty years later? It is cultivating a current state of animosity (in relation to anyone).
When there is a perceived benefit to maintaining a state of general animosity (toward most everyone, but usually with some exceptions), then people invest time in to the practice of resenting. But how is that ever beneficial?
Imagine a child who is somewhat scared of three things, but is also terrified of anyone knowing that they are somewhat scared of those three things. What is a great cover? Socially displaying constant animosity toward an unrelated thing can be a great way to distract attention from what is otherwise obvious.
Resentment is a coping mechanism to avoid dealing with shame. If I am ashamed of one thing, I can even present social displays about how some other thing is very shameful: what that person said, what that politician did not do but should have done, or the fact that Jamie’s puppy was very disrespectful to minority disabled military veterans.
In other words, resentment is not really the fight response. It is more like faking the fight response.
I rehearse verbally a fantastic social justification for resenting whoever or whatever. I present it to others. Ideally, they congratulate me for shaming and ridiculing whoever I claim to resent. They sympathize with my animosity. They support my “freeze response” of standing here impatiently waiting for my favorite villain to apologize to me like they clearly should.
However, some people do not seem very interested in the drama of my tantrums about what should not have happened 200 years ago. Clearly, they are almost as stupid as puppies.
Or, maybe resentment is not just faking the fight response. Maybe it is trying to set up an argument with a particular person (or at least about a particular subject). Maybe it is staying frozen in an obsessive, internal rehearsal of animosity until someone comes along and volunteers (whether they know it or not) to hear an outpouring of contempt about what should have happened 900 years ago.
So what is the solution? How does the practice of resentment shift or relax?
First, someone can only resent one thing in a given moment of time. If there is a big enough common threat, then a bunch of people who have been obsessively resenting each other for 4000 years can suddenly focus on resenting someone else that has socially betrayed them by revealing their naïveté.
“Copernicus has insulted both of our great nations by suggesting that our favorite models might be imprecise. Both of our nations have consulted all of the top members of the priesthood in the international ministry of infallible science and 100% of us agree that our model is simply the most scientific model in the entire history of hysterical denial. Climate change is ____ and so are vaccines! We do not need to show data or reproduce any experiments because SCIENCE!”
So, an old resentment can be interrupted by a new one. The old resenting may be renewed of course. But then it can easily be replaced once again.
The other alternative is to recognize what exactly is involved in the practice of resenting (of conjuring resentment). The practitioner claims to place a curse on their target, but is themselves possessed by their own curse. If their target has been dead and gone for 63,937 years, then the internal state of stress that they cultivate is for themselves alone.
Sure, they may be afraid of social stress and thus erupt in to repulsion and animosity whenever approached. However, that is literally to protect themselves from the biggest threat in their hell: humility.
How is humility a threat to hell? Hell is the practice of agonizing to avoid social humiliation. Humility is a state of being interested enough in social results to welcome feedback and humiliation so as to adjust and then be more effective in the future.
Or, maybe hell is not just about avoiding humiliation. Maybe hell is about avoiding criticism. Humiliation might be as simple as wanting some result and then attempting to produce it, then failing completely. That is really no big deal. However, being criticized for a humiliating failure can be very repulsive.
People may lash out harshly in relation to criticism. Maybe they expect it. Maybe they interpret things as criticism even when none was intended.
They want to avoid being bullied. Being socially humble is not complicated at all. However, pretending to be invulnerable can be even more stressful than simply being vulnerable and not hiding it.
Everyone is vulnerable to experiencing fear, flight, fighting, freezing, and faking. Pretending otherwise is optional.
Even snakes and puppies and grandpas get afraid. But only humans have a very advanced adaption for coping with intense amounts of social stress: resenting.
It is a signal indicating that someone is still processing through grief (or trauma etc) and they are embarrassed about having that grief witnessed by anyone else. They may really want to cry, but every time they start to cry, they panic and instead invoke a recipe for resentment so that they prevent or interrupt their grieving (to instead display a grievance).
Sometimes, someone may value some time alone. However, if they lack the sense of social stability to just directly say “I would prefer some time alone,” then what might result is occasional animosity or resentment or contempt.
They may give the general social message of “stay away from me” while also directly inviting others to “agree with me.” There can be an internal tension between their own awareness of themselves and some set of social ideals that they were pressured to internalize.
They may want to project themselves as “only good” and frame certain others as “especially deserving of contempt.” But is the contempt about the actual history or really just about distracting from their own experiences that they relate to as shameful (such as fear, anger, or grief)?
What naturally happens as I become alert to the reality of what resenting is and what it is for? Do I deny my own resentment or recognize it calmly? Do I hysterically resent others for practicing resentment, or hysterically defend certain instances of resentment, or simply recognize the reality of their practices of resenting?
Do I develop a sense of humor in regard to resentment? Do I sarcastically complain that some puppies just do not resent snakes as much as they should?
If I see resenting an one of many options, then I can apologize for it (or for the consequences of it). I can seek to develop my skill at that coping mechanism and method as well as to develop in other ways.
Also, my sense that there is some universally-relevant “one right way of doing things” or “one wrong way of doing things” may naturally relax as I learn about the different developmental stages of children or the different social expectations across different cultures and subcultures. Over time, I may get less interested in resentment in particular and more interested in motivation and effectiveness.
Can people develop a habit of finding things to resent? Sure they can. They can also develop other habits, like finding things to respect, to admire, to appreciate, to value, or to cultivate.
By “they,” I mean people like me. It is even possible that you could develop new habits or at least interact with people who have different habits from what is most familiar to you currently. Maybe you will find something attractive… or even fascinating or delightful.