Transforming our “blindspots:” the path from panic to peace

Transforming our “blindspots:” the path from panic to peace

Actress demonstrating initial reactions of fea...

Actress demonstrating initial reactions of fear and panic. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

An automatic reaction motivated by fear is what I mean by panic. By peace, I mean an “inner peace” or “presence of mind” that allows for the noticing of multiple alternatives, then the exploring of specific options within one or more alternatives, plus the creation of new alternatives, and then the choosing of a particular alternative or none of them or more than one.

So, peace includes means freedom and clarity and extraordinary breakthroughs in performance (actual measurable results). Peace of mind is the access to responsiveness rather than reaction, to responsibility, and to power, effectiveness, and dignity.

In contrast to peace, panic is identifiable by the anxious detailing of justifications, the antagonistic defending of some course of action as being caused at the effect of some external circumstance, the language of blame and vilification, and the frightened resistance to alternatives based on some anxious “excuse,” in contrast to the simple rejecting of an alternative with no fear or anxiety. Panic corresponds to defensiveness, argumentativeness, obsession, resentment for perceived threats in the form of questions, feedback, criticisms, “too much attention,” and even the mere reference to alternatives to whatever past actions are most familiar.

Panic is the hysterical attachment to the familiar and the hysterical fear of the unfamiliar. Panic can also be called mental anguish or agonizing or suffering or sin.

While the arising of a reaction of panic is occasional, the background of anxiety may be persistent or even constant. Any instance of panic is just a symptom of something more lasting.

Police car

Police car (Photo credit: Scoobyfoo)

That something (which gives rise to occasional panics) is the presence of a blindspot. Let’s consider what is meant here by “blindspot.”

A blindspot has 3 layers. First, a blindspot involves a presumption (indeed, an inaccurate presumption). Second, a blindspot involves a fear that a particular presumption may be inaccurate. Third, a blindspot involves a fear of any interpersonal recognition of the inaccuracy of a certain presumption.

Traffic lights

Traffic lights (Photo credit: Vít ‘tasuki’ Brunner)

Let’s consider the example of someone driving while both talking on a cell phone and also while drunk. The driver is approaching an intersection. The driver is looking at the traffic light. The traffic light is green. The driver advances in to the intersection and collides with a police car that was stationary in the intersection.

Now, the idea here is that there is a presumption that a green traffic light means that an intersection is clear and that it is safe to advance in to the intersection. It is a presumption because it is not always true. There may be some obstruction in the intersection (like the crumpled wreckage of two vehicles that collided in the intersection and are still there). The color of the traffic light does not establish whether the intersection is clear. The color of the traffic light only establishes the color of the traffic light, right? The color of the traffic light does not establish whether or not there is a stationary police car in the intersection, does it?

A senior police officer of the Hamburg police ...

A senior police officer of the Hamburg police on assignment at Hamburg city hall, Germany. Français : Capitaine de la police de Hambourg en faction devant l’hôtel de ville de Hambourg, en Allemagne. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

So, after the drunk driver on the cell phone collides with the stationary police car, a police officer quickly approaches. The police officer says nothing, but the driver yells “Hey, punk, what in the world is your car doing in the middle of this intersection? You just made me run in to your car! My neck is sore. I’m going to sue you… right after I get out and punch you in the mouth.”

The officer continues to approach, then firmly says “stay in your vehicle.” The driver says “What? What did you just say to me? Listen, this was not my fault, alright? The light was green. You should not park in the intersection, you idiot. I’m going to sue the city for having a green light when the intersection was not even clear… right after I get out and punch you in the mouth!”

The officer says “slowly put your hands on the dashboard. You are under arrest.”

Then the driver says in to the cell phone “Listen, honey, I need to call you back. This arrogant little punk must want to pick a fight with me.” The driver begins to open the driver door, then falls unconscious with the pain of an electric shock.
What was the main inaccurate presumption of the driver? When the driver saw that the traffic light was green, the driver presumed that the intersection was clear. That presumption was inaccurate.

What happens when the presumption is revealed to be just a presumption? The driver resists that recognition and presents the presumption not as just a presumption, but as a justification or a right, like the spirit of words like this: “whenever the traffic light is green, then I have the right to a clear intersection. Because the light is green, your car should not be in my intersection interfering with my right to travel! This collision is your fault.”

Further, if there is not an immediate surrender to the aggressive, intimidating claim of a right to compensation, then the presumptive driver may escalate in their panic to yelling and punching and so on. Instead of only getting fined, they may get arrested and immobilized and jailed (and also fined, but with much bigger fines).

Of course, the driver knows that a green light is not a clear intersection. However, if they have made an inaccurate presumption that the green light establishes that the intersection is clear, but then they fear that their presumption may have been in fact only aw presumption, then next they may not talk much about the intersection, at least not without continuing to mention the color of the light obsessively (hysterically).

Their panic or fear results in focusing on the issue of the color of the light. The green light is presented as justification, as establishing “who is right.”

English: A Led Traffic lights

English: A Led Traffic lights (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

However, legal rights are not established merely by someone claiming a right. Since ancient times, court rituals have been conducted to rule on conflicting claims of legal rights. When the organized violence of a specific group (the court) is over-powering enough for the court officials to force their rulings on to the other parties in a court proceeding, that is called the functioning of a stable government. However, when the legitimacy (as in “military dominance”) of a particular court bureaucracy is challenged by a competing group, that may be called a civil war or a rebellion or a riot.

It is inevitable (and favorable) that people have presumptions about traffic lights and intersections as well as presumptions about court systems of organized violence. Competing systems of organized violence may label their competitors as “organized crime” and “extortion racketeers” while they refer to their own similar patterns of action as “legitimate anti-terrorism” and “collecting mandatory taxes.”

What is the primary difference between extortion and taxation? Language is the art of influencing the presumptions of others. Government-licensed extortion is labeled “taxation.” Government-criminalized taxation is labeled “extortion rackets of organized crime.” When two groups are claiming legitimacy in the same geographic area, both groups typically label their own group as legitimate and the competing group(s) as illegitimate or criminal.

BC-Washington Organized Crime Forum

BC-Washington Organized Crime Forum (Photo credit: BC Gov Photos)

Some people recognize that words are like traffic lights. Words do not establish physical reality as fitting the meaning of the words. For instance, it may not work to say to an intersection “be clear” or to remove a police car from an intersection by dictating to the intersection, “I insist that this intersection is now clear and no longer has a police car in it!”

Words may be effective in creating presumptions, but words alone cannot make inaccurate presumptions about a clear intersection suddenly be accurate presumptions. Words create presumptions. That is simply the nature of words. It is not that words should create presumptions or that certain people have the right to create presumptions with words. Words simply do influence or create presumptions (as well as reflect or transmit existing presumptions).
So the driver presumed that the green light established that the intersection was clear. Then, when the presumption was revealed to be merely a presumption, the driver claimed (or argued) that the green light justified driving in to the intersection (“because of course the intersection SHOULD have been clear!”). Finally, if the driver argues that the driver has a right to punch the police officer, that asserting or claiming of a legal right does not establish that a court system of organized violence will recognize the assertion or claim as legitimate or effective or valid or dominant militarily.

The ruling court system rules over what is dominant militarily (“legal”). The might of the ruling court system rules over what is “right.”

For instance, if the King of France sells the territory of Louisiana to the rulers of the United States (which included Thomas Jefferson and the other members of the federal congressional priesthood), then that agreement to sell Louisiana implies that the King of France, first, has the right to sell Louisiana (meaning a functional military dominance over the humans located there), and, second, that the King is not going to attempt to interfere with the US Military’s future violence (extortion) against the residents and indigenous tribes of that geographic area. The military of France will either leave their American colony or else only operate there in Louisiana under the direction of the US.

Also, the procedures of the court rituals in Louisiana will shift from the French rite to the American rite. In particular, the court officers will dictate that a new form of payment will be accepted in satisfying (paying off) their invented claims of tax extortion liabilities- no longer accepting Francs, but instead accepting only U.S. Dollar Notes (note that this was long before the Federal Reserve took over the U.S. court system and again changed the sacred object recognized by courts in places like Louisiana from U.S. Dollar Notes to Federal Reserve Notes).

English: panic

English: panic (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

So, words create presumptions (by influencing attention and perception). Then, words are used to create “blindspots,” which basically means training people to panic at the perceived threat (to their ego, i.e., to their physical survival) of the revealing of a presumption as in fact being a presumption, in particular when the presumption happens to be tangibly inaccurate.

A driver is trained to look at traffic lights to guide their presumptions as to a high probability about whether it is safe to proceed through a particular intersection in a particular direction. A driver may also be trained to identify officers of French courts as the legitimate operation of organized coercion in Louisiana- or to identify officers of American courts as the legitimate ones (or ancient tribal courts or British courts, etc…).

Police Car

Police Car (Photo credit: VinceFL)

Is it “legally wrong” if French court officers conduct operations of organized extortion in Louisiana? It depends on who you ask! That is a legal question (a question of what language will be enforced by military dominance, by “might”).

Is it accurate to presume that French court officers are less dominant military in Louisiana than court officers operating under the rituals of the Federal Reserve? Accuracy is something that can be measured outside of language. We can calculate the amount of tax extortion proceeds that are collected by the French or the Americans in a given geographic region, how many soldiers (cops, gang members, etc) are there for each competing group, how many inmates are held captive or enslaved by whom in concentration “work” camps, and so on.

So, the basic issue with blindspots is that when a blindspot of panic is functioning, then sincerity is presented as justification for action. If my presumption was sincere, but inaccurate, I may argue hysterically in defense of my sincerity. If I am more interested in accuracy than sincerity, then I may not argue about my sincerity being important.

“You should recognize that my sincerity is very important!” That is not explicitly stated by someone operating in the panic of a blindspot, but that it is the background presumption.

“Is that presumption accurate or inaccurate? How precise is it?”

Those are not questions that arise in a panic of blindspots. Those are questions that only arise when peace of mind (presence of mind) is available. When panicking in the defense of (or denial of) a blindspot, logic and rational conversation may not be realistic to expect. Panics and blindspots are not logical, but hysterical.

They are inherently imprecise. They can present huge barriers to clarity and effectiveness.

Português: Farol

Português: Farol (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Here are a few details worthy of review:

Panic corresponds to defensiveness, argumentativeness, obsession, resentment for perceived threats in the form of questions, feedback, criticisms, “too much attention,” and even the mere reference to alternatives to whatever past actions are most familiar. Panic is the hysterical attachment to the familiar and the hysterical fear of the unfamiliar. Panic can also be called mental anguish or agonizing or suffering or sin.
How does one transform blindspots so as to cause a shift from panic to peace? One can certainly invite others to acknowledge presumptions as presumptions. However, in order to resolve the background tensions of a hysterical anxiety out of which occasional panics may arise, one may choose to distinguish fully and completely the nature of blindspots. In being present to the linguistic distinction called “panics of blindspots,” that focusing of attention on the pattern of a presumptive panic is distinct from the automatic reactivity which is the panicking itself. One cannot both notice a panic and be panicking. To say it even better, one cannot both notice that one is being presumptive and also be blindly presumptive.

It may not even be immediately important what presumptions may be inaccurate. When experiencing panic, simply notice that panics are symptoms of presumptions made in terror, in fear, in panic. Or, perhaps some of the language within this presentation has been sincerely presumptive rather than precise and accurate.

Consider that panic is a signal to check accuracy. Is it ever functional to re-assess the accuracy of a presumption? Yes- whenever there is a panic, that must mean (or might mean) that it is functional to re-assess the accuracy of presumptions, perhaps with the assistance of trusted collaborators who are not experiencing a panic of terrified, blinding presumptions.
“A blindspot has 3 layers. First, a blindspot involves a presumption (indeed, an inaccurate presumption). Second, a blindspot involves a fear that a particular presumption may be inaccurate. Third, a blindspot involves a fear of any interpersonal recognition of the inaccuracy of a certain presumption.” That is the nature of shame and panics of shame.

Rabih RABAA asks in a press conference about t...

Rabih RABAA asks in a press conference about the “presumption of innocence” in his brother’s trial (Photo credit: sherihane)

Tags: , ,

One Response to “Transforming our “blindspots:” the path from panic to peace”

  1. jessemathewson Says:

    Reblogged this on Jesse Talks Back and commented:
    A very well written and persuasive argument with regards to the presumed and real. Thank you for guiding me here 🙂

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 )

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: