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?
“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.
At the end of this article is a link, which the article introduces. What is not in the link is the idea that there was a time when the rotational axis of the earth was tilted more “to the side” (away from being perpendicular to the orbit around the sun). In other words, for a bigger portion of the planet, there was a cool hazy period lasting about six months and then the lord of light would ascend from the underworld (below the horizon) back in to heaven, where there would be six months (or more… depending on the exact region) of warmth and brightness (and vegetation).
In the darkest period, which was around winter solstice (in the northern hemisphere), the lord of light would be conceived (the Mother Earth goddess of Ishtar AKA Isis would be impregnated by the Heavenly Father). Three months later (during a festival always counted off of new moons… AKA the festival of the east / Easter/ Ishtar), the lord of light would be resurrected.
Then, three months after the resurrection, then the lord of light would fall to the earth again, which took three months as well. Then, three months after the lord of light had traveled in to the underworld to visit his queen, he would reach her and they would perform their annual ritual of intercourse. Three months later, the new lord of light would be born (reborn).
So, if you imagine people who lived through 6 months with no direct sunlight, it is easy enough to understand why it was so important to them to count the lunar phases (the months). They divided the annual cycle in to 12 moons, including the rather famous “harvest moon” in the autumn. However, the moon itself was only so important for 6 of those moons, so the other 6 moons of the year are all contained in the season of the sun’s prominence. There is the sun entering Aries (March), then Gemini, Cancer etc, and those 6 periods are followed by a period of rest or dormancy (which is 6 times as long).
The rest of the year following Pentecost is known as Ordinary Time, from the word “ordinal,” which simply means counted time (First Sunday after Pentecost, etc.). Some church traditions break up ordinary time into a Pentecost Season, (Pentecost until the next to last Sunday of August) [THE EQUINOX!!!] and Kingdomtide (last Sunday of August until the beginning of Advent).
(Stay tuned. We’ll be right back after a brief word from our sponsors.)
[Note the sign below, which says “refs are overpaid.”]
To all the Clinton critics and Trump supporters that have been startled by the recent surge of animosity on Facebook, I invite you to be gracious and even forgiving. Many of you have maintained a very respectful tone in the midst of the sweeping insults, including against millions of women and various minorities who dared to voice concerns about Clinton and/or express support for Trump.
On behalf of so many upset Democrats that might not be requesting forgiveness soon, I apologize for the flood of contempt and condescension. I also will thank all the Republicans, Independents, and even many Democrats who bravely shared their opinions (especially the ones that were the most disturbing) and who even cast a vote for… the candidate of your choice.
Some people will not be surprised to learn that my favorite candidate did not win. My favorite candidate also did not come in second. (So, do I mean Bernie Sanders? No, although that is a reasonable guess.)
Ultimately, Trump has been named the winner. I respect that. I even made a point to review several of his policy proposals and identify which ones I currently support the most.
Also, if you are among the 50% or so of eligible voters who did not vote, isn’t it wonderful to have the privilege to be able to vote… OR NOT? We do not have any duty to vote. We have the privilege of, if we wish, researching various candidates and referendum issues and then either voting or not.
As for the dozen or so people reading this who are familiar with Star Wars, I’d also like to take this opportunity to say that you are the only reason that my favorite candidate did not win. I’m not sure what that even means, but it sure feels good to say it!
By the way, I also want to note something about the 3 people on my facebook feed who were the most vocal Trump supporters for the last few months. You are either all 3 male or all 3 female.
Further, anyone who is reading this who has any special interest in whether it was 3 males or 3 females is experiencing something that I call sexism. That means, to me, bias for or against a particular sex.
Plus, I am totally fine with that. I am grateful to have the opportunity to respect you whether you are not a sexist or are a proud sexist or are a sexist who pretends not to be a sexist (and maybe even criticizes other people for being sexists).
Also, those 3 most vocal Trump supporters were all of the same racial background. On that note, anyone who is reading this who has any special interest in which racial group I categorized them in, you are experiencing what I call racism. That means, to me, bias for or against a particular group based on their ancestry (or “race”).
Again, I am totally fine with that. Even if you are biased about their religious affiliations, sexual preferences, military records, or education levels, that is fine too.
For all the young Jedis who hate critics of Hillary Clinton and supporters of Donald Trump, I totally respect that. I agree that they are all deplorable, shameful, uneducated, ignorant, racist, sexist, students of the dark side with absolutely no sense of humor. However, we might be wrong about nay or all of that. Anyway, if you choose to display contempt for them, that is fine.
We have the opportunity to respect other people or not. We can respect some and not others. We can respect basically anyone or we can disrespect basically anyone.
Finally, I respect the various “minorities” who seemed to me to wait until after the election to fully display their concerns about Clinton and/or their support for Trump. I totally respect it if you were reserved about displaying your actual opinions until after the election. I also totally respect those of you who honestly did not have any repulsion toward the Clinton campaign until after the election when her supporters started to lump you in with their favorite types of villain, so then you were repeating those very famous words of Obi Wan Kenobi: “that is not the political party that I am looking for.”
In schools and other settings, we get scared by social pressure so that we think in terms of “only one right way.” Then, we may be so intimidated that we learn to suppress the display of fear (to avoid more harassment).
That set-up often corresponds to “hysterical loyalty” to “the only right way.” Eventually we may realize that there are so many different versions of “the only right way.” That can be a problem… so we may isolate in to groups of “like-minded people who are like me.”
Then, we realize that even within the most ultra-perfectionist group, like how I was when I was a vegan, all of that perfectionism is just a way to promote seclusion. People want to retreat from social harassment, so they isolate in to smaller and smaller groups that are sure they are “better” then everyone else, which justifies their remoteness. Instead of just saying, “I get overwhelmed by social conflict,” I just begin with a huge barrier that I invent and sustain.
Since way over 90% of people are not vegan, being a vegan made me “special.” Or, that gave me a convenient excuse for massively reducing the number of people that I considered “appealing” as social companions.
I was obsessed with identifying the “perfect” practices (in regard to diet or dozens of other things), then I occasionally “broke” my own rules. It was a recipe for guilt. I kept making my “recipe for perfection” more and more challenging (as in more and more impossible) and so I was consistently anxious about “being perfect constantly.” It was a state of great tension, like agonizing over perfectionism, producing anxiety or misery or even agony… like as in insomnia-level intensity of anxiety.
Maybe I could heroically cure the world of all the things that I condemned. Or, if I wanted more free time, I suppose I could reduce the list of things to hysterically condemn.
All that perfectionism and condemnation (and campaigning for heroic reform) can get a bit exhausting. So, then I got interested in adaptiveness.
But adaptiveness can take many forms. I look back on my entire history of “agonizing over perfectionism” as adaptive within the social contexts familiar to me.
When there is social pressure to blindly conform to the dictates of “the authority” with no room for critical thinking, like in a typical science classroom (in my own youth at least), what is adaptive? To be adaptive in that case could be to adopt the anti-science orientation of “I know this is true because this is what I wrote down on the science test and the science teacher gave me credit for this answer.”
If that is the best way to adjust to the social pressure of those indoctrination rituals, then that is the social display that we will learn. Some of us may know from the beginning that it is all a pretense, but still play along. Some of us may be more hysterical and think of it as very different from learning lines in drama class.
If we think of memorizing doctrines about science as being the same as learning lines in a drama class, then we do not get pompous and arrogant. Or, if the script calls for us to display arrogance and contempt for those who dare to question the dictates of the infallible FDA, then we can practice that role as well.
Do I get disturbed by people calling themselves scientists but then displaying no respect for scientific inquiry? Let me check my script….
Am I portraying the role of the hysterical “scientist” in this scene? Or, am I portraying the role of the hysterical anti-hysteria protester?
Or, am I going to practice some lines that may be new for me: “I really admire that all these people loudly condemn the things that they consider offensive and disturbing. I also really admire anyone who quietly judges others without harassing or ridiculing anyone. Basically, I respect everyone in general, whether or not they respect anyone else. However, me respecting other people means getting to know them, which leads to admiring some people more than others. Plus, even in the same person, I admire some things about them a lot while finding some other things less intriguing or appealing.”
In fact, I met a few people last weekend who eat vegan diets (mostly or entirely). I liked them. They seemed to me focused on the potential advantages (or disadvantages) to them of a vegan diet. They were not offended by “non-vegans.”
I ate a vegan diet for a while. I have even done it lately for up to 7 hours at a time (a meatless salad for one meal, then some gluten-free pasta, etc). One thing I have learned is that I prefer relating to vegan as one type of diet instead of relating to vegan as one type of person.
Also, I just decided to make up that there is no such thing (for me) as a perfectionist. That is no longer recognized as a type of person. Perfectionist is just a description for a type of behavior.
For instance, apparently some people actually think that they are better at perfectionism than I am. That is understandable though. They just must not know me very well.
I see their hysterical, divisive, condescending political posts about other people being hysterical and divisive and condescending. Good for them. Then I think to myself “hey, most people are going to have to go through a stage of being amateur social bullies before they are skilled enough to go pro.”
2. emotional stability vs emotional resilience
3. respecting emotional instabilities
4. respecting the cultivation of hysterias
5. how the mass media is like a dog humping your leg
To “respect” something means to be interested in it enough to explore it repeatedly and then update one’s presumptions based on actual observations. The word respect is related to the words inspect, spectator, specify, special, and speculate. To inspect something repeatedly is to respect it. There is an attention to what is unique or special about it.
Emotion is simply a class of experiences, including a wide spectrum of emotions like delight, terror, gratitude, rage, courage, and grief.
Emotions can be observed in humans and many other creatures. How do we identify specific emotions? Imagine someone telling a story and displaying a variety of emotions. The display of emotion is through breathing rate, body positioning, facial expressions, and vocal variations.
We can also relate various emotions to different hormones. That could be adrenaline, cortisol, and testosterone or the unique hormonal variations of a woman who is pregnant, pre-menstrual, or menopausal.
Another obvious factor in emotional response is exhaustion. A young child who “really needs a nap” can have a very different emotional range before the nap and after the nap.
The word emotion is of course related to the words motion, mode, mood, motive, motivation, as well as to remote, promote, and demote. Mood basically means a lasting emotional tendency, so even as emotions shift, the general emotional state repeatedly “settles” back to a particular mood or motivational tendency. When someone’s “emotional landscape” recalibrates to a new tendency, we can call that a “mood shift.” When someone alternates between a few different moods, we may call them “moody.”
In fact, the word mood (and thus also the word emotion) is even related to the word moon. why is the moon famous as an influence on mood and emotion?
In all creatures, different hormones are triggered by the different frequencies of visible light and of invisible radiations (infrared and ultraviolet). As the moon reflects more light (near the full moon) or less light (near the new moon), that alters the hormonal biochemistry of any bodies that are exposed to those fluctuations in reflected solar radiation.
The more emotionally responsive (as in open or unimpeded) that some organism is, the more sensitive they will be to fluctuations in the 28-day cycle of moon phases. The brains of sexually mature human females tend to be especially responsive to that 28-day cycle, which corresponds to the duration (or “period”) of the human menstrual cycle.
As a brief aside, one subject of possible controversy among theorists is how human females developed a menstrual cycle. First, it is not isolated to humans. Many primates menstruate as well as two types of bat and one other species (of rodent). Further, menstrual cycles do not always last 28 days. Some species frequently have cycles that researchers have measured to be as short as 21 days.
Further, while the length of the lunar phase is globally consistent, the actual reflected solar radiation is not. There is a difference between moonlight in clear skies at 12,000 feet elevation near the equator and the “same” moonlight on a cloudy day at sea level in polar regions. Further, with modern humans, artificial light sources can trigger various degrees of “hormonal chaos” (and the emotional variations that result from them).
So, we have already reviewed terms like moodiness and “hormonal chaos.” What about the opposite extreme: as in emotional dullness?
This brings us to the final word of the title: stability. Stability refers to a spectrum, like very stable (as in inflexible or even inert), moderately stable, moderately unstable, very unstable, and “totally collapsed” (or amorphous).
Consider the growth of a tree. A small tree has a small root system and will be easily uprooted by high winds (like in a hurricane or tornado). As it grows, a tree can get a deep, healthy root system and so it will be more stable.
However, a tree can also begin to lean (slightly or a lot). In that case, the roots may grow in a way that counters or balances the leaning (the imbalance).
In that case, that tree could be very stable (undisturbed) by winds from a certain direction, yet rather vulnerable to a strong wind from the opposite direction. If we combine a drought then a sudden flooding and erosion with high winds, that can uproot even rather stable trees.
So, stability is a rather general term. Things can stabilize, destabilize, and then destabilize. Or, something may not be capable of the adaption of destabilizing and then destabilizing. Something “inflexible” may hold steady for while under stress, but then totally break (rather than bend).
When we respect the issue of stability in relation to emotion, we can speak of emotional stability as well as emotional resilience. To use the analogy of the roots of a tree, roots can be deep as well as widespread. Shallow roots will be unstable and deep roots will be stable. Further, widespread roots will be resilient (corresponding to the ability to destabilize and then restabilize).
So, when we respect all emotions, that means that we relate to them all as instruments, as in valuable functions. We do not hysterically suppress certain ones as “fundamentally shameful” or “negative.”
However, hysteria itself can be respected as deserving great caution and care. To hysterically suppress something (an emotion or anything else) is already an extreme emotional state of hysteria. those who operate in hysteria are already what we might call “destabilized.”
Can we respect the emotional hysteria of shaming certain emotions as negative? When we respect emotion, we can respect all emotional responses… with an interest in the unique nature of each specific response.
One contrast to hysterically shaming certain emotions is hysterically glorifying certain emotions. We can also hysterically glorify all emotions without any caution (as in alertness, attentiveness, mindfulness, fear, awe, or respect). We can even hysterically vilify all emotions (as being terrifying… which is of course operating in the emotion of terror).
We can recognize emotional instability and perhaps withdraw from social contexts of destabilized or chaotic emotions. We can value opportunities to restabilize (such as social seclusion or even social uniformity).
For instance, someone who has been triggered in to distress may value a very predictable, consistent routine… which might normally be very boring or even stifling to them. If they return to a calm state, they may value abandoning the “monotony” of too much social uniformity (or seclusion).
So, when we respect emotion and stability, we respect all of the different levels of emotional stability (and emotional resilience). We find that emotional resilience is extremely valuable (as is useful or beneficial). However, very “deep” emotional stability can also be useful. Depth prevents collapse while mere resilience does not.
As for various kinds of “emotional instability,” they are each notable. Some people are trying to suppress a particular range of emotions while trying to nourish some other part of the emotional spectrum. They are not increasing depth, but are trying to spread their roots in particular ways to restabilize.
When trying to suppress some range of emotions, we may withdraw from or shame people who display those emotions openly, such as young children or people whose career involves a particular kind of emotion. Maybe we glorify the compassionate courage of firefighters who rescue kittens from out of burning houses. Maybe we ridicule the destructive courage of soldiers who confront crowds of civilians and then throw grenades in to the crowds.
However, why is it that someone would hysterically vilify or hysterically glorify any pattern of activity or experience? We can protest or praise something without any hysteria.
Hysteria is part of a shock response (an extreme distress). If armed police throw grenades in to crowds of civilians, we can predict a result of hysteria or chaos within the crowd, right?
So, consider that some individuals or groups actively seek to incite hysteria and chaos for particular other groups (or individuals). Can we respect that provoking hysteria might be considered useful or beneficial to certain special interests?
Imagine that there is a group that wants to increase the widespread use of surveillance technology. However, the public currently is biased heavily against that.
So, how can there be a surge of public support for one specific “isolated” case of surveillance technology? Create a perception of a problem so that “more surveillance” can be presented as the obvious solution! After claiming to “solve” a few “isolated” problems with “more surveillance,” then whenever there is another new problem, the “obvious” solution can be presented: MUCH more surveillance. All symptoms become evidence for the original misdiagnosis: a simple deficiency in the use of our only salvation (the latest advances in surveillance technology).
Can the public be convinced that there is too much police brutality? Then why not create a public support for increased use of video recording devices by the police “to discourage police brutality?”
Take the desired policy and then construct a perceived problem so that the desired policy can be justified as a solution. People do this unconsciously anyway, so why not do it consciously (attentively) as well?
After all the police are set up with video recorders, then other “public safety” hysterias can be created. If the public can be convinced that students are not safe in public schools, then that perception can justify metal detectors and airport TSA inspections at every entrance. Video recorders will be installed throughout the campus (also recording audio).
It is of course important to have a solution ready before inviting public hysteria. Otherwise, parents might respond to a “student safety crisis” by withdrawing students from public schools and placing them in schools where there is no safety issue.
But public authorities do not want people thinking that “the bureaucrats obviously have been negligent, so why give them more responsibility?” If the “solution” involves giving more responsibility to bureaucrats, then a public perception of widespread negligence is unfavorable. Much better would be a series of isolated, shocking, and traumatic tragedies.
The public officials can even have some members of their alliance go on TV and argue against the policy that they want to present as a solution. The public perception can be cultivated that “anyone against this obvious solution is hysterical.”
How can an unusually deplorable politician get a surge of public support? Present them as the only viable alternative to someone who is even more repulsive to public sentiments.
In other words, stir up a hysteria in which people hysterically say “anyone who is against the obvious solution is clearly retarded.” Does merely using the word “retarded” stir up controversy and hysteria? If so, then that trigger (or “psychological button”) can be firmly established by the media and then repeatedly “pushed.”
Can the masses be programmed to perceive hysteria about cholesterol or cancer or the flu or the measles? If so, that can be very favorable for those who sell things that can be marketed as “the only reasonable solution.”
Consider an issue like policies about gay marriage. The policies might be directly relevant to a small minority of people, but think of the value (to the media) of inciting hysterias to glorify and vilify different policy initiatives. For the media to retain a loyal audience, they need controversies and scandals and hysteria. Also, to keep public attention away from certain issues, just direct their attention to the latest scandals and controversies.
The idea is to polarize the public. Even with a familiar, boring issue like “balancing the federal budget” or “raising taxes on the middle class,” the media can present a massive antagonism between exactly two extreme views.
Should there be a federal law against prostitution (to prevent legal prostitution in Nevada)? Generally, most people probably do not care. So, the job of the media could be to make people care about things that are irrelevant to them (while distracting people from various things that are relevant to them).
Should members of gay married couples be allowed to serve in the military? It is probably not a high priority issue to the military. They probably have other priorities that are much more valuable investment of resources to them. However, why not create public hysteria about that issue?
Police officers need more video recorders and more grenades in order to better protect the loyal members of the public from the disloyal civilian terrorists. The court judges who monitor police brutality need better lighting on school campuses (or infrared cameras) so that they can better regulate police brutality at schools.
Our system is the most glorious ever because we recently implemented the insightful policy of _____. Further, we heroically repealed the shamefully retarded policy of ______ (which by the way was naively presented as gloriously insightful ____ years ago).
Every individual involved in the mass media cares more about you than anyone else cares about you. Do you think that your dog cares a lot about you? No, the media cares about you more.
To work for the media, the main qualification is that someone cares way more about every single viewer than viewer’s own dogs would care about those viewers. I don’t even know why people bother owning dogs these days since now the mass media is so much more caring than it was four hours ago.
In summary, my ankle was sexually assaulted by someone else’s tiny chihuahua yesterday. Apparently, I accidentally evoked some very intense motivations in the dog, probably because of my revealing clothing.
Naturally, you may be wondering whether the dog was a transexual dog, a homosexual dog, a bisexual dog, or none of the above. As for me, at first I thought the dog might be gay, but then it tried to hump the ankles of a variety of people of different sexes, proving that the dog was born as a bisexual.
Fortunately, an off-duty undercover police officer was there to video record the whole thing. Unfortunately, the lighting was not very good.
That is why I am very hysterical that we need better lighting in public schools. Technically speaking, the incident did not take place at a public school, but, if it did, would you have wanted poor lighting to justify the continuing insanity of the deplorable retards who pretend to be my political opponents? (I only say “pretend” because we are all pro wrestlers working off of the same script while pretending not to be pretending.)
See? Just saying that proves that I am honest, unlike my opponents. They deceptively incite hysteria in the masses and use terror to intimidate and shame the masses in to relating to certain emotions as fundamentally negative. Shaming people in to hysteria is shameful and wrong and they should not do that.
Again, more lighting is the only reasonable solution to this important crisis (which my hysterical opponents shamefully claim to be just a distraction from what they deceptively call the real crisis). However, we already know that they must be presumed to be wrong because they are just suffering from confirmation bias, unlike us, who are fundamentally very different from them.
“You can’t have any pudding if you don’t eat your meat! You simply have to eat your meat first before we will reward you with some pudding.” – P. Floyd (The Wall 4:59)
The below content is from a public thread on Facebook. I will put my first comment below in ALL CAPS to show where the original comment ends.
Jacob M. Wright wrote:
The word “Hell” is not in the Bible. “Gehenna” is. “Hell” is a mistranslation. “Gehenna” is the right translation. Either you’re ignorant of this, or you’ve read it and yet choose to deliberately go with the mistranslation. Now you know.
The concept of “hell”, or eternal torment in the afterlife is literally and exactly nowhere in the Old Testament. “Gehenna” however is in the OT just a few times. It is a literal place, right outside of Jerusalem, where Israel practiced gross idolatry and later became called “the Valley of Slaughter” because of its reputation of idolatry and loathsomeness. Dead bodies were thrown in Gehenna and they were eaten by worms and turned to ashes by fire.
This provides the context of Jesus usage of “Gehenna”. Jesus quotes Isaiah when talking about Gehenna when he says “where the worm doesn’t die and the fire is not quenched”. He’s referring back to the valley of Gehenna, directly quoting Isaiah 66:24, which says “…the dead bodies, the worms that eat them up will not die and the fire that consumes them will not be quenched.” This literally happened. Dead bodies were eaten up by unquenchable fire and worms fed on the dead bodies until they were consumed to nothing. Interesting thing is, go to that Valley of Slaughter today and look in it and you will not see the fire still burning nor will you see immortal worms feeding on miraculously preserved dead bodies. The bodies are gone, the worms are gone, the fire is gone. The point is that the fire would not be deterred in burning up the dead bodies to nothing, the worms would not be deterred in eating up the dead bodies to nothing. And keep in mind these are mortal dead bodies in this life, not immortal conscious souls in the afterlife.
To read eternal torment into that is either gross ignorance or deliberate deception.
Even “eternal fire” or “eternal punishment” is a mistranslation, as “eternal” is a mistranslation of the Greek word “aionios”, which does not mean “never-ending” or anything of the sort. It means “of the age to come”, or to Plato, who may have invented the word, it means something which has its source in God and the unseen realm. It has nothing to do with ongoing, never-ending time.
There is literally no verse in scripture that can prop up the ridiculous, pagan, non-Jewish concept of eternal torment.
Spread the word to try to get rid of the ignorance on this issue.
This is not some new politically correct idea that people are making up because they don’t like hard biblical truths. There is a long list of early fathers who rejected eternal torment because they understood these correct meanings of words, they didn’t believe in the immortality of the soul (a pagan Greek belief), they had a touch of sanity (a good thing to have for theology), and they recognized that the scriptures either taught conditional immortality and/or final universal reconciliation. Eternal torment was the minority belief in the early church, and amongst those who were less familiar with the original meanings of the text. It did not become the prominent belief until after 500 AD, with the help of the violent organized institutional church established under Constantine.
Hell is not a good translation of Gehenna and it never will be. Gehenna was a real place with a real history in the Jewish mind, and it must be read in that context. Once it is read in that context, the idea of eternal torment falls to pieces, as it should.
I predict now that people will come on here quoting mistranslated verses to try to prop up their tradition of eternal torment. Most of these kind of people are not studied nor do they think very hard or honestly on these kinds of issues. They just accept what they are told. Nor have they probably ever had a dearly loved one that died an unbeliever. For them, it is completely fine that a bunch of dumb humans they don’t know nor have empathy for burn alive forever. Such a thing they wouldn’t give a second thought or shed one tear over. They simply must protect the only paradigm they know.
MY FIRST REPLY:
Below is a reference to hell in the New Testament. Hell (Gehenna) is a label for a state of rage or contempt.
“And the tongue is a fire, a world of iniquity: so is the tongue among our members, that it defiles the whole body, and sets on fire the course of nature; and it is set on fire of hell.”
Here are several verses of that chapter, again with hell as the state of “burning” eternally with rage (and guilt / shame):
1 Let not many of you become teachers, my brethren, knowing that as such we will incur a [a]stricter judgment. 2 For we all stumble in many ways. If anyone does not stumble in [b]what he says, he is a perfect man, able to bridle the whole body as well. 3 Now if we put the bits into the horses’ mouths so that they will obey us, we direct their entire body as well. 4 Look at the ships also, though they are so great and are driven by strong winds, are still directed by a very small rudder wherever the inclination of the pilot desires. 5 So also the tongue is a small part of the body, and yet it boasts of great things.
See how great a forest is set aflame by such a small fire! 6 And the tongue is a fire, the very world of iniquity; the tongue is set among our members as that which defiles the entire body [meaning the congregation as in “the body of christ(endom)], and sets on fire the course of our [c]life, and is set on fire by [d]hell. 7 For every [e]species of beasts and birds, of reptiles and creatures of the sea, is tamed and has been tamed by the human [f]race. 8 But no one can tame the tongue; it is a restless evil and full of deadly poison. 9 With it we bless our Lord and Father, and with it we curse men, who have been made in the likeness of God; 10 from the same mouth come both blessing and cursing….
Also, like stories of Santa Claus, some stories are intended primarily to influence the experience and behaviors of the audience, not to be taken as literal truth. Huge amounts of the Hebrew scriptural tradition are considered by many Jews to be only parables, not history.
If a story is based on truth, so be it. Isaiah and many others warned people to focus on the “spirit” of a teaching, not on the “letter” (the literal accuracy). So, we can see gross errors in the “Christian goyim idolaters” who worship “the letter of the law.”
They say “thou shall not lie.” That is not right. It is a prohibition of perjury (false testimony).
They say “thou shall not kill.” That is not right either.
It is “thou shall not murder.” Clearly, killing was very common: “there is a time to kill and a time to heal, a time for war and for peace, a time for hate and for love.” That is from Ecclesiastes chapter 3 (Old Testament).
JH added: Yeah well we have a whole flock of people taking every word of the Bible literally.
JR continues: They take a few words of the Bible literally and ignore the rest. They may completely ignore Jesus quoting Isaiah on many important points about fixating on language and “worshiping with only the lips and not the heart.”
Is there value to ancient European (non-Hebrew) traditions about Hades, Pluto, and a goddess named Hel? Some say so….
My husband studied at Westmont he hates it when people pick out verses without context, but unfortunately he’s too busy to comment😦 But I say we shouldn’t need to become an expert in interpreting the Bible to know God. And so many times I read something and I’m look it says this! then he tells me well you have to understand the audience and who Jesus was talking to and what he was addressing was different than it is now. And blah blah blah, so then I say well then I’m just going to make love my religion. Solves all language problems.
I appreciate your perspective, Janelle. It is not consistent with many other traditions though.
Take the three Greek words “Eros, agape, and Philia” and then translate them all as “love.” What just happened? A significant decrease in precision.
Respect is a better label for my religion (than “love”), which includes respect for logic and as well for hysteria and guilt. The religion about “unconditional love” is, how most people relate to it, actually a program for perfectionistic guilt. It is unhealthy.
It lacks healthy boundaries. It lacks self respect.
Unconditional love doesn’t mean you let people walk all over you in fact just the opposite if you have love for yourself then you won’t allow yourself to become a door mat.
Also, within the religion of respect, there are no language problems. There is language and either a respect for language or not.
Yes well English is terrible at describing love!!! Actually my husband did an awesome talk on those words and it was amazing. English falls short.
GM: Hell was invented by the catholic church as a way of keeping stupid people in line. Most people were deprived of education (not allowed to read) in order to keep them stupid. Both strategies are still used to some extent today.
JR: Prior to the Catholic Church, there were many traditions with afterlifes and underworlds and so on, including the European traditions relating to Hades, Pluto, and Hel.
GM: Yep. But usually only the one for everybody. (Greek hades was for everyone)
Egyptians believed that only people who had lived a good life (as measured by the feather of truth) would get to live for eternity in the afterlife (that predates christianity by thousands of years).
As far as I’m aware, the Catholic church was the first to determine a person’s eternal fate by the measure of their piety.
To GM, the Egyptian goddess who weighed the heart at death was Maat (as I recall). It would be fair to say that Maat was the precedent for St. Peter waiting at the gates of heaven to announce the goodness of someone and send them either to heaven or hell.
The heart was weighed against a feather to test for goodness. Maat is also depicted as holding a scale, wearing a blindfold, and carrying a sword. She is also known as justitia, portia, and “lady justice.”
Astrologers call her “Libra.”
Many “Christian idolaters” do not understand the most basic teachings in the Hebrew scripture of Genesis, such as that language is what divides “day from night, light from darkness, and heaven from earth.”
How does one year end and another begin? It is entirely a matter of language.
There is no substance to silence or darkness or stillness. These are just “linguistic conveniences” (or “poetry”).
The idea that “the darkness cannot darken a lamp” is not an obscure, mysterious reference. It is a casual, playful reference to the fact that “darkness” is not a something, but merely a label for the absence of light.
Whether intentionally or not, many Christian teachings produce “arrogant tools” who have hysterical contempt for “those stupid people over there.” Their self-contempt is projected all over.
For the one with inner contempt and self-disgust, there will be endless (as in countless) perceptions that will trigger a projection of disgust and contempt at “the disgusting thing out there that is CAUSING me shame.” They do not know the gospel of forgiveness and respect.
However, for the one who is pure, all things are pure. There is nothing unclean in itself, but if one relates to it as unclean, then it is unclean for YOU.
Do you recognize the verses I was just referencing?
The second is this:
I am convinced, being fully persuaded in the Lord Jesus, that nothing is unclean in itself. But if anyone regards something as unclean, then for that person it is unclean.
To the pure, all things are pure, but to those who are corrupted and do not believe, nothing is pure. In fact, both their minds and consciences are corrupted.
Are you giving a sermon J R??🙂 I’m not sure who you are speaking to. I have some contempt because I spent almost my entire childhood being taught one way to see things… (presbyterian) Believe in Jesus or go to hell for your sins!!!
Janelle, I do not think you were properly taught. There is a way to “see things” that involves either experiencing the hell of eternal contempt or “believing in Jesus.” You could forgive those who may have misled you… or do something else.
To “relax” contempt may be rather intimidating for many people. Contempt can be so very familiar!
Some people “make it in to their religion” (even while preaching about love & “how those other people should love me”).
So, back to Maat, when someone is “lighthearted,” then they will not even have as much weight of guilt on their conscience as a single feather. The feather will weigh more than “their heart.”
This is not about the physical organ, but the weight of contempt as distinct from a “spirit of innocence, lightheartedness, purity, respect, etc….”
However, the one who is guilty / impure / has not forgiven themselves… will be “chopped.” (I am making reference to a TV game show that is a cooking competition… but also making reference to the sword carried by “lady justice / the goddess justitia.”)
JH: Well to be honest I have dealt a lot with my contempt for how I was raised, and I recently have come full circle.This post kinda re-ignited it lol.
Janelle, you can experience repulsion and alarm at the lack of intelligence in certain teachings. Or, perhaps those teachings were in some way intelligent, even if still repulsive to you (or me).
But caution and repulsion do not require contempt, right? When I was ashamed of my naïveté at being intimidated and misled by “mainstream Christians,” then I had contempt for them. However, now I respect that, when I was younger, I was EVEN MORE naive than I later became. In other words, I have learned some stuff since being born.
Did I ever push an “ignorant spiritual perspective” on others? Maybe. Maybe for sure. Okay, for sure.
Mostly, we are made impure by social pressure. The traditional Hebrew culture does not have a teaching of a fundamental innate “original sin.”
Many Jews consider the New Testament authors Matthew and Paul to be clear cases of “apostasy” (heresy), especially the ideas of humans as fundamentally “slaves to sin.” There are fundamental risks of hysteria and hypocrisy and contempt, but not a fundamental, natural presence.
The author Luke also is big on “slave to sin” and that is key to the “pitch” of salvation through the institutional church. Likewise, socialists see government as the only access to “political salvation.”
In fact, many analysts suggest that Christianity was a plot (perhaps by Jews) to create a culture of people who were spiritually enslaved but also ashamed of spiritual slavery, so that they would neglect to be conscious of what was otherwise very obvious.
The idea of institutional salvation begins with the church and then extends throughout the holy empire. All the local warlords (monarchs and their prime *ministers*) who have been crowned by bishops (the agents of the “king of kings” in Rome) will be the great saints who offer political and economic salvation to the masses (while oppressing them).
Throughout the world, “the holy empire of the star” has armed men wearing six-pointed stars (such as sheriff deputies) and pentagrams (city cops, US marshals, etc). Through a veil of spiritual sorcery, the masses are ritually blinded to the simple reality by the indoctrination rituals of churches and the mass media and of course schools (including “science” classrooms).
JH wrote: Interesting. Yeah it is hard to get outside of indoctrination. I mostly just question beliefs now.
TB wrote: Buddhism = your beliefs are what make you suffer. Let go of them, believe nothing. Just observe
Hysterical attachment to presumptions is risky. Presumptions themselves are not so risky.
If I innocently presume, but then I am corrected by observation, then that is simple enough. The bigger problem is the terror that leads to clinging to presumptions.
Negligence leads to disappointment and frustration. That is good though because those lead naturally to attentiveness / mindfulness.
A deeper layer is the terror (pre-occupation / fixation) that is a factor especially in certain socially-reinforced presumptions. To resolve those terrors and traumas and shames, that is when the value of the sangha is huge (sangha = being around wise, cautious people).
I consider indoctrination rituals fascinating. We can look at what the Roman Catholic Church did hundreds of years ago for the training of missionaries to go out and spread the faith. We can study Tavistock and Edward Bernays and the Rockefellers and Eugene Debbs and John Dewey.
From the innovations of the “sacra congregation de propaganda fide” (spreading of the faith), modified indoctrination rituals were created for mainstream schools. Students were socially pressured to memorize “science” and then blindly repeat the doctrines ABOUT science on a test (in order to receive social validation).
That is how anti-scientific attitudes were created in the name of science, with hysteria about an essential nutrient called cholesterol plus demonic possession by invading “living entities” such as cancer and diabetes and scurvy and asthma.
JH: Yeah I agree. Have you read Ivan Illich’s deschooling society by chance?
I do not recall that title. Schooling is essential to the current efficiency of systems of social oppression.
That was all by design. The Rockefellers were very focused on destroying the emergence of holistic medicine in the 19th century in the US because it was bad for their business. Their business was crude oil and a big seller was petrochemical pharmaceutical drugs. They needed a steady market for drug addicts, so they made some careful donations to various medical schools.
They took the business model from their allies among British royalty, whose primary business has been opium for centuries (including opium derivatives like OxyContin, morphine, and heroin). The opium wars in the 1800s were all about the British invading China to keep their heroin profits flowing. The US navy and French navy also assisted the British in demolishing the Chinese military defenses.
GM adds:Some of you might be interested in this blog I wrote last night.
TB: Gavin [that article] is absolutely fantastic. I think you’ve tackled one of the biggest issues for many people in their quest for critical thinking… and done so in a way that is understandable, relatable, and highly intelligent. I loved many phrases along the way, and find deep resonance with your thought patterns. I’ll share this, too, and I hope it spreads far and wide.
GM: Thanks, Travis. that means a lot to me
I will share that article, GM. I liked it. I am a big fan of being attentive to “embedded linguistic presumptions.”
I like the idea (my paraphrasing) that organic life is what happens when light hits inorganic matter for a long enough time. I also like the section on the brain (as it relates to lobe isolation as well as parasites).
I might tidy up the conclusion. I got a bit tired yesterday 😞
(a semi-related subthread:)
Janelle Hoxie Very interesting, good arguments! I still would like to believe that our essence lives on somehow🙂 And then maybe you could come up with an explanation for near death experiences. There is this lady I follow Anita Moorjani, who is an inspiration to me, that went into a coma from terminal lymphoma her organs were shutting down and felt unconditional love for the first time, chose to come back and healed within weeks… completely unexplained by science.
Unlike · Reply · 3 · Yesterday at 8:20am
Hide 13 Replies
Travis Burch I don’t know what we can know for sure, except that unconditional love is the only thing that makes any sense at all….even as the cheetah eats the antelope, it’s still there… I don’t know why
Like · Reply · 1 · Yesterday at 8:30am
Travis Burch I also like how Thich Naht Hanh talks about how when the cloud rains and nourishes the flower, the cloud isn’t gone, it lives on in the flower
Unlike · Reply · 3 · Yesterday at 8:31am · Edited
Travis Burch Although I’d hardly suggest with any confidence that that’s the limitation of our “abiliity” to endure beyond our being’s death… But if that’s how we live on, it’s beautiful.
Like · Reply · 2 · Yesterday at 8:35am · Edited
Janelle Hoxie That is beautiful! And if we think of energy and vibration I think love would definitely have a higher vibration than hate.
Like · Reply · Yesterday at 8:58am
Gavin Morrice Thanks Janelle.
I think that sense of universal connectedness and love comes from the right hemisphere in the brain….See More
My stroke of insight
Jill Bolte Taylor got a research opportunity few brain scientists would wish for: She had a…
TED.COM|BY JILL BOLTE TAYLOR
Unlike · Reply · 2 · Yesterday at 9:03am
Travis Burch Yes! Think about how hate necessitates or invokes cortisol and acute or even chronic stress… which is the opposite of a low stress state… and low stress is high energy. So love is probably the highest state to store energy in a cell and a body. One might say we run fastest when we are afraid of, say, a lion chasing us, but I think we might find ourselves become even more superhuman in a situation where we needed to rescue a child, or our child. Perfect love drives out fear, and I think that’s where our greatest energy potential lies. Great thoughts Janelle!
Like · Reply · 1 · Yesterday at 9:03am
Stephanie Peña My son had a similar experience Janelle. Before his transplant he got the flu which almost killed him. He was so sick he had to be air lifted from PHX Children’s to Colorado Children’s and we were told he probably won’t make it to CO (they didn’t even want to air lift him but I threw such a crazy fit they finally gave in). He got to a point where he was only able to take in tiny puffs of air (his last breaths) and the flight crew was trying to intubate him, but there was too much turbulence, so one of the nurses said “fuck it, lets pray” so we all did and with in 30 seconds he was completely healed (from the flu). We landed in Colorado and went to the ICU and the docs were like “why are you guys here?” It was pretty incredible healing experience all brought on by love and intention.
Unlike · Reply · 3 · Yesterday at 9:03am
Travis Burch Three simultaneous posts!
Like · Reply · 1 · Yesterday at 9:03am
Janelle Hoxie Yes, that fear state… I am doing everything I possibly can to get out of that fear state, it is torture! Love is the state I want to be in. Not that I am denying emotion, but I really believe the chemicals that go along with fear lead to sickness.
Like · Reply · 2 · Yesterday at 9:20am
Janelle Hoxie Stephanie Peña wow! thanks for sharing that, what an intense moment that was!
Like · Reply · 2 · Yesterday at 9:21am
Travis Burch I believe denying raw emotion is a great path to love deficiency
Like · Reply · 2 · Yesterday at 9:38am
Janelle Hoxie Yeah, I’m learning how to accept suffering and emotions that arise, but not coming from a place of fear. One of the ways I healed my panic disorder is to accept the panic, I’ve had times where I was fighting it and fighting it and that seems to feed into it, but then when I just accept what it is, everything just calms back down again within minutes. I was just thinking about that last night. To accept that being human is to suffer is to transcend.
Unlike · Reply · 3 · Yesterday at 9:43am
Travis Burch very well said, janelle!
Like · Reply · 1 · Yesterday at 9:48am
JR: Janelle, if we compare panic to a place (like “coming from a PLACE of panic”), that implies disorderliness. I am not aware of any way to extract panic from hyperventilation / neurological hypoxia… or to extract hyperventilation from panic.
Simple fear, however, is “a place” of great efficiency. If I am startled in to alertness by an unexpected sound, that fright or fear can correspond to very high efficiency, as in “getting in the zone.” For someone not already “in the zone,” fear is a very common pathway to getting in the zone.
Distress and shame and pre-occupation / distraction / paranoia do not correspond to high efficiency or perceptiveness. Those tends to be states of low neurological efficiency.
JH: Interesting way of looking at it, are you saying you can’t take panic away from hyperventilating? I’ve been studying panic disorders for 2 yrs, the only way I could ever get a hold of it is changing my thoughts, accept that adrenaline is running through my veins but not to panic about it.
I realize fear is useful it is a primitive way to motivate you to action. I have extremely sensitive fear responses. My nervous system reacts so instantaneously!! Supposedly this is a good thing I’m not sure. But panic attacks that happen for no apparent reason made me generally fearful in life which means constant fight or flight. I’d rather live life fearlessly.
JR: Janelle, I respect fear. I am not afraid of it, which is to say that I am completely relaxed in regard to whether I experience fear or not. If there is potential danger, I want to have the advantage of alertness to accurately assess dangers and risks. Then, any risks can be addressed (whether by avoiding from some potential danger or neutralizing it etc).
As for “panic attacks,” consider that there is no “attack.” Same for asthma “attacks” and anxiety “attacks” and even heart “attacks.”
When a brain is low on oxygen, it can send signals to “breathe faster,” which is a favorable reflex in some cases. However, it is also valuable sometimes to slow down the rate of breathing. Slower, calmer breathing allows for the oxygen to get out of the bloodstream and in to the brain cells (and other cells beyond the blood stream).
This principle has been recognized for a very long time (like for thousands of years in meditation practices across many cultures), although the specific biochemical mechanism of why slowing down the breath can be so helpful was only documented in 1904. More: https://jrfibonacci.wordpress.com/2014/10/18/how-to-ward-off-demonic-attacks-of-panic-by-slowing-down-your-breath/
It is possible for someone to get more frazzled (as in grumpy, jumpy, etc), such as by lack of sleep. Most anyone who has raised or watched young children know the value of “noticing when they NEED a nap.”
It is also possible for someone who has been “jumpy” for years or even decades to become a “grounded person” (or a “mellow” person). When we are dealing with neurological functionality, that means electrons and oxygen and all those other very important components.
There is a video in a subthread above (as I recall) about a lady named Jill who studied strokes, and then had a stroke, then recovered fully. I also had a similar “neurological disaster” and recovered quite well.
JH: Yeah I don’t like the terminology, its not like something is attacking my body, I understand the mechanism quite well now. And do use breathing to get out of it as well. But the first trigger for me is never because I was just hyperventilating and thus the panic happened. Maybe I was shallowly breathing because of being anxious or worried or fearful.
JR: Since 1904 when the biochemical mechanism was established, there has been a lot of research on the huge “downline” of consequences to “sub-optimal” breathing (which is VERY common).
Anyone who breaths through their mouth most of the time (including while sleeping) can benefit by retraining their breathing. There are many other issues of course that can be factors.
Again, some people can easily hold their breath for three to four minutes (and repeatedly, like while exerting themselves vigorously underwater most of the time for twenty minutes straight while only coming up for a breath a few times). So, not only is breathing a method to decrease or increase panic / distress, but to measure broader neurological health.