on “what should be”

What is the effect of informing or indoctrinating others as to “what should be” and “what should not be?” Of course, these communications program attention toward the specific patterns referenced.

For instance, in religious programming, there may be an instruction such as “people should be honest.” This focuses attention on the issue of whether or not honesty is present, or at least is perceived or publicized, and so on. Of course, the word “honest” is not defined in the above instruction, so let’s use an even more revealing example:
“People should be flaggy.” (The point is that I just made up the word flaggy).

So, now even without knowing whether or not people are flaggy or not, we may be interested in learning what it is so that we can be that way (or at least do those things that would predictably result in us appearing flaggy to other people). We may also be interested in identifying when other people are not flaggy so that we can point out their lack of flagginess and establish ourselves as all the more flaggy relative to those extremely unflaggish folks.

If someone suggests that I am not flaggy, I may withdraw from them, accuse them of being even less flaggy than I am, or simply target silencing them, such as by killing them. Or, I may thank them for pointing out my unflagginess, apologize for the isolated incident of unflagginess, and then publicly do some things that are very flaggy.
So, by constructing models of how people should be, the rulers or propagandists inform groups as to how the recipients of the propaganda should be. The instruction “people should be flaggy” is actually not really about other people. The instruction is about the recipient of the propaganda and how that recipient should be.

If I tell you that “people should be flaggy,” and you know that you are one of those people who should be flaggy, then really all that just happened is that I told you to be flaggy without directly telling you that. We could call that an indirect or covert or unconscious instruction.

Obviously, you may then be suddenly concerned with learning what flaggy means and displaying any flaggy behaviors of yours and minimizing exposure of any unflaggish behaviors. The flaggishness of your behavior may or may not change, but a new behavior of emphasizing certain behaviors and minimizing attention to others will arise. In other words, you have been instructed to be attentive to other people’s perceptions of you. “People should be flaggy” means that you should present yourself as flaggy and show your conformity to the bias toward flaggishness by criticizing people who are unflaggy, unflaggish, and otherwise lacking in flagginess.
You may want to join campaigns for the promotion of flaggishness. You may insist that politicians be more flaggy in particular, as well as the media and also notable people in distant countries. They should be flaggy, too, because they are people and people should be flaggy.

In fact, you may eventually presume that all people, unless proven otherwise, are inherently flaggy because that after all is simply how people should be. Not only should you focus on the issue of whether other people perceive you to be flaggy, but you should perceive other people, at least those close or dear to you, to be flaggy. Anything less would be to invite conflict and guilt by association.

Not only do we focus attention on whether or not other people perceive us individually to be flaggy, but whether they perceive our friends and business associates to be flaggy, even our political party or our country. “Our political party is the most flaggy of all, and so is our government and our whole country, and so are my very flaggy friends!”
Since everyone should be flaggy, it becomes important to occasionally punish some folks for their lack of flagginess, or even just for their lack of loyalty to the idea that all people should be flaggy. People need to be reviewed for flagginess and rewarded or punished in accord with their flaggishness. It is only fair, right?

Flaggishness becomes the great moral issue of a culture. Our great triumph is our flaggishness and our pride is that some other people are not as flaggy as we are. As an individual, I emphasize how particular individuals are not as flaggy as me. In business, I emphasize how other businesses are not as flaggy as my business. In politics, I emphasize how other political systems are not as flaggy as mine. In religion, I emphasize how other religious groups are relatively less flaggy or even anti-flaggists.

All of this proves my loyalty to the idea that people should be flaggy. My loyalty proves that I am flaggy. After all, convincing everyone I encounter that a few other people in particular are “not flaggy enough” is the absolute pinnacle of flagginess. It is very flaggy of me to monitor the flagginess of other people and to condemn them for unflaggish behaviors. Our conversations may center on the breakdowns in flaggishness on the part of our spouses or co-workers or competitors.
Why? Because everyone wants to be perceived not just as somewhat flaggy, but the most flaggy. In a couple, only one of the two people can be the most flaggy. In a group of one hundred, the competition is to be the most flaggy, or at least in the top half of flaggishness.

In a business, only one of the co-workers can be the most flaggy, which means that I am constantly concerned with noting other people’s flaggishness and collecting evidence for a possible eventual witch hunt crusade inquisition against unflaggishness.

Obviously, the more that someone knows about any unflaggishness on my part, the less urgency I might have to publicizing any unflaggishness on their part, but of course I would if my own flaggishness was at issue. The best proof of my flaggishness, of course, is my willingness to condemn others for their lack of flaggishness. The better that I am at gathering evidence of flaggishness, and the more diplomatic in leveraging that knowledge, the more loyalty I can expect from others who may be aware of some minor unflagginess on my part- of course very minor and quite isolated incidents.

Also, if our business is competing with other businesses, I loyally point out how flaggy the competitors are not and how flaggy we are. Yes, the same people I just criticized for unflaggishness, I now suddenly champion for flaggishness if the comparison is no longer against me personally, but against the entire group of which I am a part.

Not only is my country by far the most flaggish, with the most flaggish history and the most flaggish current champions of flaggishness, but we are also very concerned about getting more flaggy and staying flaggy and so on. That is because we are so flaggy that we are so concerned about continuing to be (or at least appear to be) flaggy.

So, the definition of flaggishness is to rally around this flag as opposed to the other flag or flags. Those other people who are rallied around those other flags are not as flaggy as I am. They have the wrong flag, which is not just an innocent error on their part, but a moral failure for which we flaggy people should mercifully relieve them of the evil horrors of living with their moral failure… by efficiently killing them or at least conquering their social system under threat of extermination.

Flaggishness really means loyalty. Honesty really means loyalty, too, but it is impolite to say so.

Of all the things that people really should be, people should not be TOO loyal. They should be flaggy or honest or hard-working, but being loyal is a bit too direct. Be morally superior, not just loyal. Merely being loyal is what all those other businesses and countries are doing.

Be the most flaggy. Be morally superior. Encourage flaggishness by telling other people that they should be flaggy and then criticize or punish them for any display of unflaggishness, because controlling what people display is the point of indoctrinating your subject in how people should be. People should only display the qualities that they wish for other people to perceive.

Because I am so authentic about how inauthentic I am, I notice and admit how valuable it is for me to look good. This may be the most flaggy thing that someone could do.

I define how people should be. People should be direct, straight-forward, and honest, not manipulative or propagandist or concerned about appearances and results and methods that work.

People should be unselfish and moral and think for themselves. People should not just accept whatever propaganda has told them. People should definitely resist propaganda, or at least condemn it, or at least deny that it exists, such as by suggesting that it was recently invented, like just 14 seconds ago. Also, if you are going to rally around a flag, make sure that the flag that you are rallying around is the most flaggy flag of all, or at least appears flaggy.

Anyway, what is the difference really between the appearance of flagginess and actual flagginess? What specific behavior distinguishes between actual flagginess and the mere appearance of flagginess?

After all, people should not be concerned about appearances and other people’s perceptions. They should only be concerned about their own actual flagginess, like how much they condemn other people’s unflaggishness. People should condemn other people’s unflaggishness, by which I mean that people should condemn other people, like for being other than they should be.

People should be concerned about condemning other people, but not directly to those people. That could be a safety issue. Condemn others safely, like from a safe distance and among other people who can safely join in the condemnation against spouses like that (unflaggy spouses), bosses like that (unflaggy bosses), politicians like that (unflaggy politicians), and of course flags like that (unflaggy flags).

Thank you for your flaggishness. I wish you an absolutely flaggy day, and may God flag us all.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

One Response to “on “what should be””

  1. jrfibonacci Says:

    Life forms memory
    conforming to identity
    So, how I should be
    constructs my perceiving

    If I should be good
    memory shows me I am better
    than the others who are worse
    just because I should be best

    But if she should be good
    that also defines my being
    My role is to prove her right
    At least in her own speaking

    I provide the evidence
    required for her drama
    I perform a function
    for the ego of my mama

    My role’s internalized
    I’m sincere for I believe it
    It can’t be just a role
    because it is all I know

    Every single memory
    supports that identity
    It’s not just how I should be
    It’s who I am

    and those who pose a threat
    to the way I really am
    well they must be neutralized
    for they are demons

    But if the way I really am
    is really just a role
    or an identity made of how I should be

    Then the whole of my past
    at least as I perceive it
    is interpretation claiming to be truth

    and the same is true for you and you and you

    what if there is no way of how I really am
    and beneath all that is who I really am

    what if those demons in my past
    were just some roles that life constructed
    and all the heroes in my mind
    were just some functions of deduction
    proving a prior conclusion of what should?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: