Posts Tagged ‘antagonism’

On the programming of political antagonisms and hysterias

September 19, 2015

I am going to share a series of interactions that share a single theme. First, I will start at the end. I will share my own post that Carl recently shared and asked me about. The background was a set of interactions involving a fellow with the initials TD, whom I find generally quite intelligent and open (but with some exceptions).  I will share the background last. I plan to remove all other names except for the 3 participants already noted (including me, JR).

Carl Freestone shared your post.

12 hrs ·

VP Andrew Johnson: “anyone who questions my political values is irrational and arrogant.”

President Abraham Lincoln: “and what exactly are your political values?”

The VP: “your question only proves that you are irrational and arrogant, so that justifies completely ignoring your question. I have been mad all day long and just waiting until I could bait someone in to volunteering to be the target of my contempt. Thank you!”

The President: “very interesting.
By the way, if someone ever assassinates me with the help of several accomplices, automatically making you the new President, would you then use your presidential powers to pardon them, protecting them from criminal prosecution?”

VP: “Hey, I did not make up these rules. I just use them in the advancement of my political values.”

  • You like this.
Comments

Carl wrote:

I’m not getting the VPs logic, J R. Is this what it looks like when one is irresponsible?

  • J R Fibonacci Hunn Carl, first, this begins as a fictionalized version of a real Facebook exchange today (then I got a little more creative). Second, I can understand your labeling of “irresponsible.” Third, I call it “what you get when someone has been subjected to years of mainstream education.” I will explain that.
  • J R Fibonacci Hunn When a government wants to program certain political values in the youth, it can create curriculum standards and then train the youth to first focus on memorizing the political ideals and then second to blindly repeat those slogans back on school tests in order to attract social validation. Since “there is only right answer” that gets credit from the teacher, the students become accustomed to the idea of consensus. They actually expect all other people to agree with their ideals. They may be confused by exposure to any contrasting political ideal. so, with that programming as a foundation, the youth graduate from school and suddenly there is no social ritual to confine their intellects. So, to adjust to their distress (from the absence of someone telling them the one and only right way to think), they turn to religion and the media. From the media, they are given basically one of two approved ideologies.

    In the US, we have the social nationalists (the republicans, who are nationalists with a heavy dose of socialism). We also have the national socialists (the democrats, who are socialists with a heavy dose of nationalism).

  • J R Fibonacci Hunn Most of that is not essential to the psychology of it all. The main issue is that when people are ashamed of all the socialism, then they become republicans. When they are ashamed of all the nationalism (the imperialism and corporate welfare), they become democrats.in contrast to nAtionaLism would be a confederacy. That is when the private citizens and the sTates retain power rather than the nation (presenting itself as the savior of all of the states / citizens).

    because of the shame about the basic foundation of the U.S. As a national socialist republic (not a democracy!), there is a background of paranoia and anxiety. People want to distract themselves from whatever is shameful to them.

    so, they Pick something to condemn. The fans of socialist Bernie sanders may hysterically ridicule those who note that socialism and communism are similar in several ways.

    “They are irrational! It is offensive that they do not agree with us. Our group has a monopoly on intelligence. How can all of those other people be so irrational? I do not understand it and so in my own hysteria I ridicule them for confronting me with the reality that there are a variety of political preferences. The existence of variety disturbs me. I need consensus like in the 6th grade class in which the teacher provided the official truth and then regulated us by censoring any controversy (or only on approved issues, like abortion -either pro-abortion or anti-abortion).”

    the hysteria is epidemic. Plus, it is programmed.

  • J R Fibonacci Hunn By the way, president Johnson did pardon “the assassination team” hired by the British monarch to over rule the ballots of U.S. voters with a bullet to the head of Lincoln.
  • J R Fibonacci Hunn TD, feel free to review and comment.

Here is the specific exchange on facebook that led to the above content (and I put some portions in bold or italics):

Please win, Please win, Please win

The People For Bernie Sanders 2016's photo.

This is happening, people. Bernie Sanders to grace cover of Time Magazine TIME

  • “KRB”: I like Bernie, but Americans will NEVER elect a self described socialist. It won’t happen.
    • TD: canada [where I live] is socialist. so are all the other best places to live like scandinavian countries.. i think people need to read and figure out what it actually means
      Like · Reply · 4 · 19 hrs
    •  socialism puts checks and bounds on greed and gives you awesome social perks like free healthcare…bummer
      Like · Reply · 1 · 19 hrs
    •  i need to see a doctor, i just walk right in.
    •  oops forgot my wallet…no biggie

      Like · Reply · 2 · 19 hrs

    • KRB: I agree, and if I thought he had a chance I’d vote for him. But sadly, most Americans still link socialism to Cold War communism. Is it rational? No way!…Americans just can’t separate the two. We are not that progressive. It’s sad.
    •  TD: it’s weird..for such a powerful country it’s so strongly backward. I think a lot of other western countries are watching and just shaking their head going ” what the hell is going on there? ” That Trump can even run for president makes the whole thing look like a bad joke…I feel bad for all the good american people, it’s embarrassing.
      Like · Reply · 2 · 19 hrs
    • KRB: I totally agree, TD.
    • TD: For a country that used to be so progressive it’s a shame

      Like · Reply · 19 hrs

      KRB: You don’t have to sell me on it. I’d be fine with following the European model. I’m just saying America will never be socialist country. At least not in my lifetime. The GOP and moderate Dems won’t vote for it.

    • J R Fibonacci Hunn KRB, if you talk with Eastern Europeans who fled the soviet bloc to come to a LESS socialist System in the U.S., then you might have a different perspective. If you ridicule someone whose opinion differs from yours, that justifies avoiding the details of their opinion.

      if you want to know what the KGB had to say about the connection between socialism and communism, search “yuri KGB demoralization and destabilization.” Of course, I expect you to ignore or ridicule the idea of researching the issue. If you think that you already know, then why open a closed mind?

      Like · Reply · 15 hrs

    • “SN:” Socialism and Communism are two different systems, no matter what the KGB had to say about it. Pol Pot and Mao cannot be compared to any socialist leader like Bernie Sanders by anyone with a bit of good sense.

      Like · Reply · 15 hrs

    • J R Fibonacci Hunn FYI, the socialist agenda has been advancing consistently in the U.S. Since at least the 1930s. Do you know the 10 “planks” of Karl Marx’s Communist manifesto? How many are in place in the U.S.? 10 out of 10 are in progress.

      Like · Reply · 15 hrs

    • J R Fibonacci Hunn TD, I agree that many Americans are embarrassed about politics. Democrats are embarrassed by trump (a republican). Republicans are embarrassed by Obama (democrat).

      Why are the masses demoralized by the *opposing* party’s candidates? Because of the great success of the subversion programs to demoralize and divide the population in the U.S.

      Like · Reply · 1 · 15 hrs
    • J R Fibonacci Hunn SN, I note that you consider yourself an expert on the issue and do not need to consult the KGB. For those in distress, there is always a “strawman” to attack or a red herring to use to distract yourself from the trigger of terror and shame.
    • SNJ R Fibonacci Hunn, no, I don’t have to consult the KGB in order to discern between Socialism and Communism. That doesn’t make an expert, it’s enough to do some research. Or you want to keep pushing your theory that the USSR and Sweden are basically the same?
  • J R Fibonacci Hunn (To SN:) That is what I mean by “a strawman.” You attack an assertion that I did not make. I am used to that. I consider it hysteria.

    TD experiences shame [& embarrassment] about political trends in the U.S. That is also common, even for people who are not here.

    shame and hysteria are the desired effects of demoralization. Then the new hope for salvation is the next politician to the rescue, right? If he loses, there is a small instant demoralization. If he wins, then there is euphoria then a much longer period before the shame sets in.

    Like · Reply · 14 hrs

    KRB: To J R… I’m not ridiculing anyone. I think you misunderstood me. I don’t feel that way…. And I don’t think that’s everyone’s opinion, but I have heard that comparison (socialism/communism) made before particularly when I’m around my parents’ friends…baby boomers. I wish the USA was more progressive, and I hope-hope-hope I’m wrong about socialism in America. I’d love a Bernie Sanders for my President. I just don’t think the majority would support it. Peace.
  • KRB: Relax J R,! I’m on your side. No attacking happening from me. If you are in a battle with me, it’s a one way fight.
  • J R Fibonacci Hunn Last century, What was the big difference between the USSR and USA and the declining empire of Britain? Was it politics? No. It was that the uS and USSR were the #1 and #2 producers of a cool new fuel called “crude oil.” Britain did not have it, so their empire over 25% of the land mass on the planet shrunk considerably, while the soviet and U.S. Empires expanded.
  • TD: J R likes to argue and he loves being right. Thats what I like about him
    Like · Reply · 1 · 14 hrs
  • J R Fibonacci Hunn In contrast to (who)???

    Like · Reply · 14 hrs

    J R Fibonacci Hunn I am open to providing actual factual references that might not correspond to people’s slogans.
  • KRB: I’m in mello mode….not in debate mode. Have fun! Peace out! 😎

    Like · Reply · 14 hrs

  •  TD: J R. I personally don’t feel anything, especially shame. You are projecting.. There is no real shame.
  • J R Fibonacci Hunn I was just paraphrasing you, TD: “For a country that used to be so progressive it’s a shame.”

    a shame for who? Not for me. For you?

  • J R Fibonacci Hunn Also, What exactly do you mean by “backwards?” Do you mean it scares you? Causes you grief? Infuriates you?

    grin emoticon

  •  TD:  it’s just wording, not literal.. don’t be so willing to always be right you sound arrogant…sorry..
  • J R Fibonacci Hunn If something disturbs you and you keep focusing on it, that is not unusual. “It is sad.”

    No, a human is sad about it. It is what it is.

    Like · Reply · 14 hrs

  • TD: holy shit man, go and do your linguistic tearing apart to someone else..Do you listen to yourself some times? I appreciate your intellect but sometimes you come off a bit self righteous buddy..
  • J R Fibonacci Hunn Many people are demoralized. If “that sounds arrogant,” Then maybe “arrogance” is your go-to justification for coping with something that challenges you in a way that exceeded your commitment to the subject.
    Like · Reply · 1 · 14 hrs
  • TD: it was a pretty simple Meme. I don’t need to argue this one at all.. Got to pick my battles.

  • J R Fibonacci Hunn So you appreciate my intellect except when your self-righteousness and my self-righteousness distract you? Show me self-righteousness. Show me arrogance.
    I model it like this, as an example: “I am so glad that our country is not shameful like yours.” I do not mind people criticizing the U.S.

    Almost everyone wants social validation. They want to preserve what they already believe. So be it.

  • TD: it’s all good buddy, take a bit of criticism, it’s healthy.. I take shit all the time. it’s no that big of deal.
  • J R Fibonacci Hunn You did not say anything that offended me. You just informed me about you. You can see my latest status for my further comment relating to this thread (the quotations of Abe Lincoln and Andrew Johnson).
  • TD:  i am all good
  • J R Fibonacci Hunn Somewhere in the U.S. there are a bunch of republicans praising their favorite candidate for being 6 parts nationalist to 4 parts socialist. Their Facebook thread looks exactly like this one, except here Bernie is praised for being 6 parts socialist to his 4 parts of nationalism.
  • TD:  lol.. thats actually pretty funny
  • J R Fibonacci Hunn Sad, funny, infuriating, boring: it all depends on what emotions are just bubbling under the surface for whoever is observing. You got all the way down to the humor layer. tongue emoticon
    Like · Reply · 1 · 13 hrs
  • TD: lol
    Unlike · Reply · 1 · 11 hrs
  • SC: It seems that America and it’s comrades are imploding and their society is collapsing. Well, sorry for the ordinary american people but you can’t go around the world buggering up other innocent peoples lives all the time and expect that something good will come out of it all for your country. All you do is create more hardship for your own. If America stopped going to the planets and having space cadets and making weapons of mass destruction then they would have more than enough money to wipe out their debt.! But they won’t because the war mongers that run it would lose out.!
  • Like · Reply · 14 hrs

    • J R Fibonacci Hunn I laugh when I read that “America is collapsing” (written by SC). Really? That is funny.

      I had a girlfriend who lived through the “collapse” of Yugoslavia in to the different countries that now cover that portion of the globe (Serbia, Croatia, etc). There was a civil war. There was an actual collapse of social infrastructure.

      (By the way, some of the immigrants to the US that I mentioned earlier in this thread were from that part of Eastern Europe and are relatives of that ex-girlfriend of mine. They lived under communism and they have “very strong opinions” about socialism and candidates like Bernie Sanders.)

    • J R Fibonacci Hunn When we look at empires, like the British empire (or the Spanish empire, Soviet empire etc), we see that, although it is much contracted from 100 years ago, it still rules over Canada and many other regions. Does the British monarchy continue to benefit from going “around the world buggering up other innocent peoples?” Yes, even though they have not been invading new areas like India and Hong Kong recently. They reap the benefits today of military expansions from hundreds of years ago.

    Some other related content from TD’s facebook wall:

    TD shared John Stevens‘s photo.

    20 hrs ·

    John Stevens's photo.

    John StevenstoPhilosophy

    Bernie Sanders and economics.

    If someone says “Bernie doesn’t understand economics.”
    Ask them if they are Austrian or Keynesian.

    If they say Austrian, which they probably will, tell them they are being intellectually dishonest.
    Austrians consider economics to be based on certain value judgements.
    So when those people say that Bernie “doesn’t understand” they are really saying that they don’t agree with Bernie’s values.

    Manufacturing Consent

    • JR and 6 others  like this.
Comments
Comments
Comments
  • J R Fibonacci Hunn I think it is stupid to focus “too much” on what you say you are against. It is like having a campaign to prevent people from thinking about a pink elephant that has some painted shapes on the side of the elephant’s torso and the shapes form the letters of these words “this pink elephant (which you should not even be thinking about) hysterically condemns reverse psychology as shameful”.


the rebirth of God

December 25, 2011
the core of all gospels
Have you met different individuals of different sizes and ages? Do you know different creatures including various kinds of animals and plants? Have you learned different words and do you even know of languages foreign to you? You can identify many different perceptions, right? So, could it be that all identifying and all perceiving have a single source?
First, consider that there is only one ultimate authority or power, and one word to label it is God. However, beware of worshiping the label and missing what is symbolized by the label. Note that many labels have been used in many languages for the ultimate authority, which is the source of all of those languages and all of those labels. With caution, use the labels. However, do not make any labels or any symbol in to an idol. That would be an error or mistake or sin or foolishness.
Further, turn away from whatever is troubling to you. Let it be. Choose grace and calm.
Leave your troubles to God. Do not leave God for your troubles, making an excuse of them. That is also idolatry.
If your cleverness is useful when you are relaxed, be grateful. However, if you are troubled and then still presume to rely on your cleverness, you may be humbled. Repent from arrogance. Arrogance is the root of antagonism, arguing, resentment and animosity.
Abandon your troubles while they are still small. Direct your attention away from your troubles toward God.
The ultimate authority organizes the capacity for sensations such as seeing and hearing, plus the capacity for language. God is the source of the interactions and interpretations which lead to perception.
If someone else has a different perception from you, that is natural. Different creatures have different capacities for sensation. A hawk sees better than a human. A dog can smell better than a human. A person who is blind may be able to hear better than most other humans.
Further, one who looks from the peak of a hill has a different view than one who looks from the bottom of a hill. The one on the hilltop can see many distant things which appear small, while the other may study something very close that appears huge. If most everyone has the same perception of something, then a new perspective could be of great benefit and advantage.
Differences in interpretation are the most subtle. When a logger and a squirrel look at the same tree, do they experience the same thing? An squirrel may be looking at the tree for nuts or for a place to rest safely. A logger may be thinking of the value of the wood and of the process of cutting and hauling that tree.
Beware of those who would argue over interpretation. They may not yet recognize the authority of God. They may worship their own conclusions, perceptions, interpretations, and linguistic labels, which is idolatry.
However, it is only natural to have interpretations, perceptions, and conclusions. Hell is the developmental stage of experiencing alternative conclusions as a threat to your arrogance. Of course, alternative conclusions in fact are a threat to your arrogance, but perhaps arrogance is not the most valuable quality you could develop or experience. That may be why God has exposed you to alternative conclusions which you rightly perceive as threats to your arrogance: in order to reveal to you your arrogance and turn your attention toward repenting and to God.
“Turn to me and be saved, all you ends of the earth; for I am God, and there is no other.” Isaiah 45:22


I, even I, am the LORD, and apart from me there is no savior.”  Isaiah 43:11 

So, if some use repetition of words and songs to turn from whatever troubles them, could that be God’s Will? If some use rituals or scriptures to turn from whatever troubles them, could that also be God’s Will? If some argue with each other and quarrel, leading to the experience of loss and regret and then repent, could that also be God’s Will?

Which of God’s creations is not God’s Will? Which of God’s creation is not the creation of God?

God forms individuals and words and languages. God forms groups and traditions and rituals and songs and oral teachings that may be written and translated and interpreted and argued about and defended with fences and weapons and wars.

So, you may have been taught that God has created you. But have you been taught what God is?


“Timeless truth, I tell you: ‘whoever believes in me, those works which I have done he will also do, and he will do greater works than these, because I am going to the presence of my Father.’ “ John 14:12

What is the source of works greater than the works of a Prophet of God? Further, which of God’s Prophets is not the prophet of God? Indeed, which of God’s religions is not the religion of God? In fact, do all religions point to a few  consistent principles?


“I am conscious of this, and am certain in the Lord Jesus, that nothing is corrupt in itself; but for the man in whose opinion it is unclean, for him it is corrupt.” Romans 14:14 

“To the pure, all things are pure, but to those who are corrupted and without faith, nothing is pure. In fact, both their minds and consciences are corrupted.” Titus 1:15

“It’s not what goes into your mouth that corrupts you; you are corrupted by the [harsh, arrogant] words that come out of your mouth…. The [harsh, arrogant] words you speak come from the heart—that’s what corrupts you [and disturbs you].” Matthew 15:11, 18
Turn away from whatever troubles you. Turn away from whatever disturbs you. Turn away from evil. Turn away from blame, condemnation, animosity, and arrogance. 

Let attention rest at the source of perception and interpretation and the capacity to create. What is the capacity to create? 

Yeshua said, “Those things which are impossible for people are possible with God.”
Mark 10:27  & Matthew 19:26 & Luke 18:27 & Luke 1:37
The same idea is also in the Old Testament. See
What is a single word for the capacity to create? What is a word for the source of all words, all labels, all conclusions in language, and all formations in language, including this sequence of words and every other sequence of words? What is a word for that which anything is possible?

maturing beyond sinfulness

December 22, 2011
Sin = ANY error  (not just moral violations) or ANY act of misconduct (including even a failure to take responsible action)
3 types of sin (in the tradition of the ancient Hebrews): negligence, shame, and malice
 
You are soul. Soul is attention. Attention is the source of words. Words are your creation, not your source. Words can direct the attention of the young and impressionable, but, when the soul matures, attention is stabilized beyond words.
It is an error to believe in words. Belief in words is the root of all malice or ill will. In particular, people may identify themselves with or against certain words. That is the root of all psychological suffering (guilt, anxiety, depression, etc…).
That misidentification with linguistic labels is also the root of idolatry, which inovlves mistaking a word like “sacred” or “holy” with Divinity itself. When one is ignorant of Divinity and then labels as “holy” some mere word or phrase or idea or physical object or pattern, that is idolatry. The word Divinity is not what is symbolized by the word Divinity. Worshiping the word Divinity or even a particular scripture (including the US Constitution) is idolatry.
So, sin includes ignorance, negligence, shame malice, as well as the resulting actions. While some uses of the word sin refer in particular to actions, that usage diverges from the traditional Jewish (Hebrew) or Greek usages, as well as the words of the most famous religious figures such as Jesus, Buddha, and Isaiah.
Sin is not just a category of action, but also the source of some behavioral reaction. Consider this translation of a famous heretical prophet: “you have been told that to put someone to death is sin, but I say to you that even to be angry or hold ill will toward another is sin,” as well as other famous instructions: “Condemn not,” “Judge not,” “Let the one among you without sin cast the first stone” and of course “Forgive one another.”
Ill will requires language. Resentment does not arise from action or inaction, but from the language that we can use to ongoingly produce an experience out of our commentary and imagination relating to a memory. Resentment requires first creating shame from a past incident, then blaming someone else for our experience (while we mature in the capacity to accept the experience). In other words, our challenging experiences are part of our development.
The cultivating of antagonism through language is the root issue. From antagonism, many actions may arise, such as war, murder, rape, theft, fraud and so on. However, as Jesus said, it does not require the action of a murder or rape for antagonism or jealous lust to be a disturbance to one’s well-being.
First, we are totally ignorant. Then we begin to learn but still are developing discipline and thus are subject to negligence (which can also be viewed as any failure to be responsible for our reputation). Next we construct linguistic rationales to blame others for our results, which is malice or ill will or resentment, but also shame and pride. We create pride as a barrier to accepting responsibility for our overall results (by focusing on particular results while we ignore the rest of our results, of which we may be quite ashamed and quite hysterical if anyone attempts to direct attention at those results for which we may have been constructing a linguistic identifying or labeling as shameful). In other words, on the foundation of shame, we may develop malice toward those who fail to agree with us about our prides and shames.
That experience of malice might be called hell or purgatory. There may be access to “heaven” at a later stage.
These are the three basic stages of human socio-linguistic development: ignorance, shame, and malice. Next, however, is maturity. A comprehension of the role of language in the constructing of shame and malice allow for an attention to that linguistic process, the realization that inattentiveness or negligent language itself is what creates the malice, so the only remedy required is to cease the negligent language and remain attentive, and that is freedom from sin. That is spiritual rebirth.

Who can we trust?

December 14, 2011

Who can we REALLY trust?

Our elders?    Mine taught me to believe in Santa Claus
Churches?      Besides Santa, one church taught us that the sun goes around the earth
Doctors?        They taught us that scurvy was incurable (and that smoking was safe)
The Media?   They did not warn us about economic instabilities
Politicians?   Right, as if our politicians are more trustworthy than politicians in general!


Beware of trusting tradition. Traditions come and go. Respect them, but do not worship them.

Copernicus and Galileo both noted that the earth revolves around the sun, but only Galileo attracted the wrath of the ruling Empire of organized coercion by proudly challenging tradition. Nearly two thousand years before them, Aristarchus, Seleucus, and even Archimedes had also publicly referenced the idea that the earth revolved around the sun, though Archimedes simply acknowledged the model while rejecting it as false.

English: Galileo facing the Roman Inquisition,...

Galileo facing the Holy Roman Inquisition- Image via Wikipedia

So, it is one thing to merely reference something like Archimedes did, another to confirm it, and yet another to openly disrespect tradition by advocating a model contrary to popular superstition and even publicizing the error of egomaniacal dictators. Galileo was emphatically warned that aggressively publicizing his model (of an earth that revolves around the sun) would result in personal punishment and then he openly risked that punishment, resulting in his conviction as a heretic by the Inquisition. He was spared the typical death sentence of ritual human sacrifice of the Holy Roman Empire‘s Inquisition and was even spared imprisonment or torture, instead only being placed under “house arrest” for the rest of his life (9 years).

Two priests demand a heretic to repent as he i...

"Two priests torture a heretic and demand that he repent." Image via Wikipedia

Now, there are many popular beliefs which may be myths, from Santa Claus to geocentric models of astronomy to political intolerance, like the theatrical anti-communist purges headed by US Senator Joe McCarthy. Ironically, that anti-communist purge was rather similar to any other purge, including communist purges. The McCarthy purge was rather like it would be to organize a counter-Inquisition to purge all Catholics as punishment for the historic Inquisition by a few Catholics centuries before: a replication of the thing it is alleged to oppose or prevent, a mere hijacking of the prior tradition, a clear hypocrisy.

Some people shout and scream and rage each time that a politician is exposed as a hypocrite. Eventually, one may notice a pattern: a high proportion of the politicians in world history have condemned behavior patterns that they were practicing themselves at the time, especially deception (but also coercion).
But why condemn spies for practicing deception? Why condemn assassins for practicing violence and terrorism? Why condemn commercial advertising propagandists for cultivating distraction, disinformation, and confusion?

That is the clear function of mainstream media and education, and what would actually be really odd would be frequent disclaimers warning the masses that commercials are designed to influence perception and behavior. So, have we been trained to condemn certain practices primarily in order to discourage us from practicing them- or at least openly practicing them?
Historically, there have been many social institutions that have cultivated antagonism against their own institution and then punished the rebellion. Courts need crimes (and criminals). Armies need enemies, like in the US Civil War in which the Union Army invaded and occupied the people living in territories that wished to basically get a divorce from the USA.

However, could any individual or group in the governments of those states legitimately speak for all of the people of those territories? While several leaders of the Rebel Confederacy may have favored secession, which sectors of the population favored or opposed secession? How about Native Americans? (Oddly enough, various groups of Native Americans and even slaves may have fought on both sides of the Civil War.)

Some people may say that the sacred principles of property rights were being defended by the Confederate soldiers: the legal right to own another human being as property. Many of the “moral justification ideologies” of politicians that are popular within a particular group at some time are later relaxed or even reversed. Even the Roman Catholic Church officially reversed it’s position on Galileo’s heliocentrism in 1992 (which was 359 years after his trial, conviction and sentencing for the crime of heresy).

The government of the US has famously reversed it’s position on such issues as slavery, the right of women to vote, and the criminalization of alcohol. In fact, what was once a crime punishable by death or life imprisonment, speaking the Navajo language, was later a famous “secret weapon” of US Military in World War 2. Also, about two hundred years after the religious freedom at least of certain white males was protected in the US, the American Indian Religious Freedom Act of 1978 was passed (yes, even protecting religious practices that included the use of the Navajo language).

Traditions come and go. Respect them, but do not worship them. Beware of trusting them.

Jesus apparently taught “cease condemnation and forgive.” Obviously, not everyone who may appreciate something about the story of Jesus is aware of that specific teaching, and further not all who are aware of it are equally developed in the practice of forgiveness or humble repentance from condemnation.

Shall we condemn them for even only a recent history of condemning? Shall we add to the already long history of religious hypocrisy? We could. We could even simply condemn all people who condemn people, or at least condemn some of the people who condemn people.

We could also condemn the media for doing what they have always done, or condemn the politicians for doing what they have always done, or condemn any of the traditionalists for resisting alternative theoretical models, like by condemning those models. So we could condemn some or all traditions and traditionalism.

We could even condemn being respectful of traditions and traditionalism rather than contemptuous. We could make contempt in to a new tradition to champion.

“Contempt is next to Godliness,” we could shout. We could write it on signs: “What we need is more contempt! Okay, maybe I don’t need more contempt, but obviously you do!”

An introduction to language

November 11, 2011

This is language. Language is an activity of human consciousness.

Universal consciousness has formed human consciousness. Universal consciousness, through it’s form as human consciousness, has formed language. Through language, consciousness constructs complex patterns of human interaction.
Language emerged through the distinct capacities of the human brain. Neurological studies have produced ideas in language about the evolution of the human brain distinct from the brains of other creatures (as well as creatures without brains).
Human language is distinct from the signal sounds used by most animals on this planet. Human language involves syntax or sequential meanings. In other words, the words “a girl” and “a boy” and “kissed” can be arranged sequentially to present distinct meanings: “a girl kissed a boy” or “a boy kissed a girl” or “a boy and a girl kissed.”
The signal sounds of other species of animal besides humans do not present varying meaning depending on the sequence of the signal sounds. Each signal is distinct and associated with a particular action, like “stop” or “danger” or “speed up.”
How did the human brain evolve syntax? Neurologists have suggested that the neurological networks for the physical act of throwing were used for sequencing words in to complex ideas.
Throwing is most important for humans for one specific purpose: hunting. The capacity of humans to effectively hunt (by accurate throwing) is what allowed for humans to access large quantities of nourishing animal fat, especially the Omega 3 fatty acids EPA and DHA. The large intake of those fatty acids, over time, allowed for human brains to develop capacities far beyond the brain capacities of any other species on this planet.
Back to throwing, the neurological process of throwing is extremely complex. The sequence of muscular contractions and electrical signals for accurate throwing is quite intricate, especially to hit moving targets. Other animals are not nearly as accurate at throwing as humans. The only system comparable to the intricacy of throwing a knife or a spear is the guidance systems for missile rockets, which are even named after the word used for weapons that are thrown: missile.
So, human biological selection favored the ability to throw. Humans that could throw well survived and thrived.
Then, humans also developed the capacity for language, which allowed for them to be much more effective in group hunting than they could be individually, even as rather accurate throwers. The human brain grew even faster as a result of the increased success of the humans who not only could throw much more accurately than any other creature, but could work together to hunt their prey.
Then, through their large brains and their use of language, humans worked together with each other and developed the capacity to build bombs, then eventually to fly them with great precision through the air across miles and even oceans on the tips of a type of rocket called a guided missile. Humans created these flying rocket bombs not for hunting, but for thinning out the competition from other humans who could also throw and talk and hunt and perhaps even build bombs and guided missiles.
Bombs are for killing humans. Killing humans could be relevant whenever there are so many humans around that resources like wild game or fossil fuels are getting scarce.
The first tribal wars were for competing over hunting territories. Modern wars are similar, but distinct. Modern war is for killing humans but also for intimidation as in diplomatic control of other humans, for governing, for empire.
Why is it valuable to control other humans? They can be discouraged from hunting scarce remaining wild game, from using scarce fossil fuels, or from eating animal fats like the Omega 3 fatty acids EPA and DHA. Also, language is one of the most dangerous of all technologies. Weapons of mass destruction can be important for influencing the language of other humans, since language is part of the process that directs behavior such as hunting and dieting and warring and so on. In other words, killing and intimidation are also important in controlling the language of other people.
If other humans are to be most easily conquered or controlled, then using language and all other means to discourage them from warfare is important. They should be trained to be ashamed of things like hunting and warring. They should also be indoctrinated to consume unhealthy food and avoid healthy food. They should kept desperate, distracted, and confused.
The effective use of violence and also of language is essential for a lasting system of government. People should be taught that churches and the media and corporations and governments are all isolated and competing against one another, rather than branches of a single metaphorical tree. Drama and contentiousness and antagonism are essential in keeping a target population divided and conquered (controlled or governed or ruled or organized).

corruption and the tea party

October 29, 2011

We are taught what actions qualify as corruption (things like lying, bribery, lobbying, stealing, and coercion). Next we are taught not to do those things (like by being punished for doing them- including with the psychological warfare of tormenting expectations of eternal torture in hell).

Already, irony is present. Note that punishment is coercive. So, we are discouraged from using coercion by someone else using coercion against us.

We are also taught that governments protect us from corruption and crime and so on. All governments glorify themselves as having a foundation of moral excellence, often with some selective legends and even quite creative mythology about the people who started a government: Lenin, Washington, Castro, Mandela, etc….

In the case of the U.S., for instance, one of the most famous acts of tresspass and destruction of property became known as the Boston Tea Party. While that event was clearly a crime (and a very organized one) by the recognized legal standards of the operating jurisdiction of the time, the same event that is labeled a crime can also be labeled a heroic act of courage.

Why not both? Obviously, both labels are valid interpretations or meanings.

The side that wins a conflict dictates (or declares) what interpretations or labels to use to describe the events of the conflict. No government apologizes for it’s origins. Every government glorifies it’s origins.

So, are governments getting more corrupt? Consider that governments may have been less corrupt and then become more corrupt. That is possible, right?

Then, instead consider that governments generally involve some corruption (like across the last several thousand years, for instance, as recorded in the Old Testament of the Bible and many other places), but governments generally are effective at public relations enough that the people who have been exposed to government propaganda (like in public schools and mass media outlets) think that any particular government USED TO BE morally superior to how that government is lately (relative to the latest exposed corruptions).

Or, maybe you believe that corruption was invented recently. Note that corruption is a word, like sin and crime. Crime is a legal category created by declaration (such as through the adoption of as criminal statutes) and enforced through systems of organized coercion (such as courts or “the offices of the Holy Roman Inquisition”).

Crime is not consistently defined across all jurisdictions or even across time. In the US, alcoholic beverages were prohibited (criminalized) and then decriminalized only a few years later.

Now, licenses are involved in the selling of alcohol in the US. It is a crime to sell alcohol unless one has a license.

Systems of licensure are systems to coercively benefit the government by involving it in some business activity as a recipient of funds. Those funds may be used to punish other competitors who operate without a license.

Governments are systems of organized coercion and coercive privilege. Governments define “corruption,” punish unlicensed “corruption,” and of course license activity that would otherwise be corruption or crime, but is legal when licensed/approved by courts and the bureaucratic associates of the courts.

When Oliver North confessed to a series of criminal acts performed in the late 1970s, he was functionally granted a license retroactively by President Reagan. Reagan pardoned him and his co-conspirators. Reagan also directly benefitted from the successful accomplishment of the mission of that conspiracy.

Is that so different from what happened in the case of numerous governments that are famously depicted as corrupt? Imagine that in the Trojan War, someone had the idea of deception involving a Trojan Horse, and they later admitted the deception or corruption or coercion involved in their activities, but then were pardoned and even glorified?

The Boston Tea Party might have been the inspiration for many “terrorist” acts in the mid 1800s in slave states in the US, but none of them may currently be as glorified as that prior act. However, in the future, the Tea Party may be considered by some to be a disgrace and the uprising at Harpers Ferry led by John Brown (or some other event) may become symbolic of moral heroism.

One era’s corruption may be another era’s moral heroism. Robin Hood is a legendary British criminal who has been glorified as a hero. Ollie North or John Brown may be remembered for many centuries as well.

So, many people complain about “new” corruption in various governments.  In the 1990s, after Japan’s economic deflation started, a wave of complaints about politicians surged. When public sentiment (in economics) declines, are politicians among the most popular targets of scapegoating? Likewise, when public sentiment (in economics) rises, are politicians among the most popular targets of glorification?

Who chooses the targets of attention? Who chooses the “spin” (context or type of attention)?

Is it the corporate mass media? What commercial interests direct the corporate mass media?

In the EU and US, a similar development to what happened in Japan has been manifesting since the peaking of stock markets between 2007 (for Greece, UK, etc) and 1999. Many of the forecasters who forecast the decline in the US economy, such as myself, also forecast the shift in popular culture as it relates to governments. In early 2003, when I began commenting on the coming real estate decline, or in 2004 when I focused more on the coming surge in fuel prices, or in 2007 when I warned about the coming instability of stock market prices and financial institutions, I already specified that President George Bush would be scapegoated as the one to blame. Why? Because he was the sitting President.

Look at what happened in any other case of major economic decline. Politicians are scapegoated when things are scary and glorified when things are blossoming.

Now, I assert that scandals are publicized according to a sort of schedule by the media. Initially, the Occupy Wall Street protests got very little mass media coverage. Suddenly, they were a central feature of a media circus.

Why? Was it just the corporate media’s attempt to “take over” the conversation about the protests and increase their audience for their commercial sponsors selling things like toothpaste and beer?

That is possible. Or, the mass media may be specifically targeting a promotion of certain kinds of dissent and scandal and conflict.

Darth Vader/The Emperor: “Feel the hatred, young Skywalker. It is the antagonism between the Tea Party supporters and the Occupy Wall Street supporters that makes me strong and my strength is the strength of the Holy Romulan Empire. While there is drama and contentiousness between the new right wing and the new left wing, our tactics of “divide and conquer” keep the bird from actually flying, since the two wings are in conflict rather than partnership. As long as the 99% is really only 50% and the Tea Party is actually approaching 49%, then I have the deciding vote, which is my control of the media (oh, yeah, and the credit markets, too). Did you really think this is a democracy? What military branch is a democracy? What corporation? In what family’s household would the toddler children have equal influence with the adults? In what wolfpack is there no alpha dog? I started both revolutionary reactions. I will also guide them to their climax and conclusion, or else my name is not the gently reluctant Senator Palpatine.”

Why is it important to certain commercial interests that the masses of people argue and protest- hysterically if possible? The details of the drama may not be important. As long as people continue to make the same financial choices that the Japanese made in the 1980s (flipping real estate on mortgages and dumping money in to stock mutual funds and so on), then their complacency will establish their economic fate. They US can predictably follow the path of Japan (or worse).

Commercial interests establish and enforce linguistic declarations of what is corrupt, criminal, sinful, and so on. As long as the commercial interests who establish and operate governments can distract the masses of people from prudent financial choices and thereby monopolize certain behaviors (such as prudent investing and conservative legal sheltering such as through estate planning or systematic use of bankruptcy protections), the commercial interests will maintain their monopoly of influence and affluence. They will control the systems of organized coercion and also control the mass media channels which will inform public opinion about the glories and evils and corruptions and triumphs of the various “solutions” that the commercial interests are dictating as “what to think about.”

One of the most notable things I learned as a college undergraduate was this: “the mass media does not control what the people think. We only control what the people think about.”

The competing herds of Tea Partiers and OWS protestors will both focus on which alternative political solution to promote for economic salvation. As long as the various herds are focusing on political activism rather than financial adaption, the promise of a possible, eventual economic salvation through political reform may remain an attractive myth.

Universal theme of propaganda #279: “only organized political action can save us all from economics, which is the morally superior outcome to target. People who propose to improve their own financial situation by responsive and responsible adaption to economic change are traitors to the Empire. They are the 1%. We must save you from them by massive political reforms.”

www.OneEyedKingsWealthClub.com

Beyond the cult of heroic martyrs

October 16, 2011

Who is remembered fondly for dying for the cause of a rebellion, like for the rejection of a particular idea or phrase in language? What popular fictional characters? How about the founding fathers of US Tea Party movement heroes like Patrick Henry (who said “give me liberty or give me death!”) or even the once-violent Malcolm X?

Malcolm X may have felt guilty about his prior advocacy of violence. So, he acted to compensate for his guilt- speaking out against the advocacy of “political violence” – as in the phrase “by any means necessary”- and soon he was killed and many have glorified him as a hero or martyr.

So many of the heroes of our culture have been martyrs who lived (and often were killed) for some rebellion against some conformity: Jesus, JFK, Martin Luther King Jr. (who was named after the man who inspired the first seven letters of the word Protestant: Martin Luther), as well as Gandhi, former “terrorist leader” Nelson Mandela, a protesting Chinese college student in Tiananmen Square who stood in the path of a tank, the Vietnamese monk who burned himself alive in protest to warfare, and so on. Do these heroes actually serve as models of our behavior or do they mostly just remind us of the possible consequences of non-conformity?


Given that virtually none of the people who glorify the heroism of Jesus follow his actual life choices to become a wandering ascetic, consider that these heroes are not so much models of behavior as reminders and warnings. We may use these martyrs to produce guilt within ourselves, with the idea being that we should not conform as we actually have been, but that we should become a wandering ascetic like Jesus or the Buddha and so on.

Focusing on that ideal perhaps creates and sustains the experience of tension and guilt and shame, if believed.

Jesus, according to popular versions of his life story, publicly rebuked the religious leaders of his day as hypocrites, apparently resulting in his death. That pattern of action is actually rather distinct from simply developing inner peace and promoting a spirit of cooperativeness. 

Was the story of Jesus the first ever story of the rebuking of hypocrisy? Even Moses is well known for condemning the behavioral traditions of “his people,” though he was not killed for it by the people he rebuked. Further, Jesus frequently quoted the Old Testament prophet Isaiah, dramatically referencing the distinction between the activity of simply using words such as “peace” and “respect” as distinct from an actual experience of peace and respect.

Can one be peaceful and respectful while rebuking someone? Does rebuking imply animosity and resentment and antagonism and aggressiveness?

Also, should people experience shame for behavior patterns that could be labeled as selfish? Should people keep certain behaviors secret, at least from inquisitors who threaten torture and execution? Should people lie about selfish behaviors and rationalize them as actually having been unselfish? 

Should people always conform? Should people always condemn conformity? Should people always condemn hypocrisy? Should people discontinue the condemning of other people? Should people condemn condemnation?

My experience has been that I have repeatedly condemned other people (whether particular people that I personally know or remote groups even from distant times), and further that I have eventually noticed that I have sometimes done very similar things to much of what I have condemned. I can accept that the intensity of my condemnation of something may be proportionate to the extent of my own practice of that thing. I can also accept that the intensity of my glorifying of something may be proportionate to the extent that I avoid practicing that thing.

“Wouldn’t it be great if people completely stopped being involved in commercial activities and just donated all their wealth and all their time to other people?” I may say things like that, implying that such a pattern of action might be great or greater than some other pattern, but I might not really know if it would be great or not because I may not have actually done it and I may not ever, even though I may talk a lot about how great it allegedly would be.

What if what I really meant was this: “wouldn’t if be great if EVERYONE ELSE EXCEPT ME simply donated all their wealth and time TO ME?” I might experience that the competitiveness in the commercial economy in my midst is challenging for me. I might really like the idea of government benefits received by me that are derived from the collection activities of governments that result in me effortlessly having what used to be other people’s wealth or productivity.

“Government mercenaries, please go and find some rationalization to condemn or criminalize some behavior of other people and bring me the spoils of the conquest. Please hurry!”

“If the spoils come from a distant nation or from traffic tickets and confiscations from convicted local drug dealers, just keep these roads well-maintained and these medical services free. Do not betray me by leaving it to me to be responsible for my own finances, my own welfare, my own health, my own family, and my own experience of inner peace and respect.”

“If people insult us and disrespect us and threaten us, punish them. If people refuse to do business with us at the prices we consider fair, conquer them. If they have values and cultures distinct from ours, like if they decline to commit to pacifism (as in us having a monopoly on nuclear weapons), then give them an ultimatum between unconditional surrender and us bombing them to ashes, but please do not enlist me to be directly involved in the bombing, because that sounds rather dangerous… plus, military drafts are undemocratic, and our militant, imperialist bombings are the most democratic in human history so far, though we only bomb civilians when we are absolutely forced to do so by the majority voting for it and only in order to promote and demonstrate loving-kindness, peace, the combined compassion of Christ and Buddha, and of course the inalienable right to life of all people everywhere, except of course for those who do not recognize and worship the ideal of the inalienable right to life.”

So, do these words sound like the jokes of Charlie Chaplin or the ramblings of a mental patient or the typical statements of politicians and religious leaders throughout history? How about all of the above?

Remember, a martyr is someone who dies for identifying with a cause. Identifying with something involves language. Martyrs die for their language.

Should all people everywhere glorify the ideal of dying for a particular linguistic ideal? Uh, well, if that appeals to you, then you can go right ahead and “march on the Vatican to protest the inquisition” or “occupy wall street” or “march on the pentagon to protest bombs and propaganda and imperialism.” 

By the way, consider that no one is going to march on the pentagon because, for one thing, there is no open physical space there to make that convenient. Further, the popular conception that the US is a democracy does not fit with the idea of marching on the pentagon (or on to a military base or occupying a federal courthouse). Those who believe that a particular government is a democracy are more likely to march on the great temple of the elected senators (and the lobbyists who fund them).

If you think that you can go conduct a public demonstration on a military base or at the pentagon or in a federal courthouse (or a police station or fire station) simply because you live “in a democracy,” you may soon find that you are conducting demonstrations in a jail cell… if you are that fortunate.

Democracy is a component of many political processes. So is organized coercion. That is not a contradiction. Not every government in human history has involved any democratic procedures, from the governing of a household to an empire. However, has any government failed to use the procedure of organized coercion?

Should we be ashamed about a particular government’s use of organized coercion? Should we keep it a secret? Is there a general pattern of punishing with organized coercion those who directly reference organized coercion? 

Or, is there only a specific pattern of the punishing of those who directly antagonize the agents of organized coercion? Wouldn’t you be wary of populist campaigns to occupy the pentagon or even occupy to an airport in China? Your coercion is probably not even close to organized enough to successfully accomplish that kind of result!

Be realistic. In other words, if you like, for an interesting afternoon, go ahead and gather up a few thousand friends to occupy wall street. 

Further, if being a martyr especially appeals to your pride, then identify some linguistic ideal and commit to dying for it. If your idealistic sacrifice attracts enough publicity, then you may even be remembered fondly as one of a rather long list of trailblazers in the promoting of other people’s right to make themselves in to martyrs, too.

Of course, such a path of drama, pride and possible fame may not be the path of inner peace. If inner peace appeals to you, then dying for a linguistic ideal may not be of any relevance to you. You may find it more inspiring to question the nature of all linguistic ideals, including the ideal of the heroic martyr.

As-Salamu Alaykum. Aleichem Shalom.

good news (“resist not evil”)

September 3, 2010

“Resist not evil.” – Jesus
http://bible.cc/matthew/5-39.htm

I am complete with sin and “maya” and injustice and other similar words, like “incurable illness.” Instead, I may use “inconsistent” and “mistaken” and “inapplicable” and “imprecise” and “ineffective.”

Yes, the second set are adjectives, not nouns. However, that is the point!

Consider that there is simply no such thing as “a sin,” or not until someone says so. There is even no such thing as a crime, or not until someone “criminalizes” something and then enforces their declaration of the existence of a crime.

English: Detail of Preamble to Constitution of...

Image via Wikipedia

For instance, in the US during the early 20th century, the production of alcoholic beverages was criminalized by an Amendment to the US Constitution, then de-criminalized by a later Amendment. So, is it inherently criminal to brew alcohol or not?

Alcohol may ferment naturally from fruits. If an apple falls from a tree and begins to ferment, producing alcohol, has someone committed a crime or not? Aha, but what about a grape!

In other words, is the natural biochemical process of the fermentation of fruit, which produces alcoholic liquid, inherently criminal or evil or sinful or shameful or bad or dangerous? Consider that there is nothing inherently criminal in any inaction (such as failure to join a national military) or in any action (such as dropping a bomb and killing thousands of people in the name of freedom or equality or retribution or terrorism or peace-keeping, etc…).

Governments criminalize certain activities as part of their normal functioning of regulating (governing) the behavior of the territories they occupy. Punishments (and rewards) are invented and enforced by certain people against others. All governments are occupation governments, operations of organized coercion or violence or intimidation, AKA military governments.

This is not a condemnation of any or all governments. They are not inherently evil. Nothing is inherently evil. Evil is a category in language that is invented and applied and later redefined, like the terms “crime, sin, and injustice.”


Even the definitions of what is an illness change over time. You may have heard of an incurable illness called scurvy. You may have at least heard that, at one time, certain medical professionals may have referenced an “outbreak” of incurable scurvy among sailors who were all on a long sailing voyage together. Perhaps the ignorant medical professionals simply misunderstood innocently that what they called scurvy was just the name for some symptoms of a certain level of Vitamin C.

When we identify something as “the symptoms of a relatively low level of vitamin C,” we are not creating an illness or performing a curse in black magic. A particular level of Vitamin C cannot be labeled an “incurable illness.”

Of course, there is really no such thing as an incurable illness or even an illness at all. Every so-called “illness” is declared into being (perhaps as distinct from such things as an injury or bio-chemical toxicity). An “illness” is fundamentally an activity in language, a process of categorization, a “social construction” of so-called “agreement reality.”

There are any number of actions that are inconsistent with a statement of intent or ineffective for producing a certain result, but the belief that there is something inherently wrong with anything in life – any of “God‘s Creation(s)” – is what I would call diabolical (from the roots dia-bolos, meaning accusational or villifying) as in Satanic or shaming or cursing. I did not come to condemn the world, but to remove the sin of the world, to free the humble from shame with a truth that many people may ridicule as foolishness…. or simply dismiss.

The humble will be innocent and curious and peaceful, like children, and experience what we might call the state of “heaven.” Those who worship vanity and wickedness and evil and illness may continue to burn with envy and animosity and condemnation and guilt and contempt and antagonism and belligerence.

Now, when a linguistic model fits well with a particular circumstance or context, then it is useful. When it does not fit, it is inconsistent with the circumstances, irrelevant, ineffective, inapplicable. Using an inapplicable model, especially obsessively or stubbornly, can produce surprises, frustrations, confusions, conflicts, and exhaustions.

So, the use of words like sin and crime and evil and injustice are simply for the influencing of behavior, for governing, for herding. So is the use of the words “our enemy.”

When we are taught by commercial media and public schools and governments that certain purchases are safe, such as because they are government-regulated or government-operated, consider that such teachings are what we might call a “sales pitch.” State lotteries and casinos and the FDIC and the FDA and the insurance industry and the mortgage industry and the Social Security Administration have something in common. What they are have in common is that some people have faith in them, some people value them particularly, some people regularly invest in them, and some people might even get insulted and argumentative or even violent at a reference to the reality of the extent of sustainability or wisdom or integrity in certain operations or trends of changing behaviors.

For instance, people may complain about the TARP program as a bail-out program for the banks redistributing wealth from the US taxpayers to the least responsible gamblers among the banks. However, the FDIC is also a very similar program for attracting business to the qualifying banks (and thus benefiting those who own shares of ownership in the banks). Previously, deposit accounts were insured by the US government for up to the amount of $2,500 (as shown in the image below), but that number has incrementally been increased 100-fold to $250,000.

Why should the US government be co-signer for billions or trillions of dollars of debt owed by all of these banks? Perhaps because the banks saw the benefit of that and lobbied for it. Whether it is FDIC or TARP, it is clearly a huge advantage for the banks at the expense of taxpayers.

FDIC placard from when the deposit insurance l...

Image via Wikipedia

Beware of those who worship a particular linguistic model for reality as if one particular linguistic model is inherently more sacred or moral or applicable than all other models. They may be fools who do not understand the function of language. Language, by the way, may be a tool for influencing the behavior of others, for organizing behavior, for governing.

Again, I am complete with sin and “maya” and injustice and other similar words, like “incurable illness.” Instead, I may use “inconsistent” and “mistaken” and “inapplicable” and “imprecise” and “ineffective.”

Yes, the second set are adjectives, not nouns. However, that is the point!

original video:

condemning condemnation

June 12, 2010

You may have the experience of setting yourself up as the judge of which expressions of “love’s essence” are the true ones and which are false. There may be the idolizing of “unconditional love” and the shaming of everything else (which is not especially loving, but just more idolizing!).  That to me is the pinnacle of silliness (and vanity/idolatry).

Consider that what some “spiritual people” may reference as “our essential nature” and “unconditional love” are like the seed or roots of a tree. All of the branches of the tree come from the root, but are distinct from the roots, right? The branches are all conditional, like affinity and personal relations like marriage and biological ancestry. Those are extremely conditional, but they are not “false,” just “specific!”

So, all of the branches are specific (as in conditional) yet they all proceed and are nourished by the roots. For anyone to “sit in judgment” of their own tree of life and say “those branches are good and these branches are evil” is living from sin, from maya/error, from hell, from agonizing, from guilt, from condemnation.

The branches are distinct. They are not better or worse from each other.

The branch of condemnation is also an expression of unconditional love. You cannot experience that through the rational mind, but consider it possible anyway even though it seems like a logical paradox.

Try this instead first. Everything is an expression of “god’s will” or it would not exist. That is logically solid. The idea that there is some other will in operation besides God‘s will is not consistent with the definition of God that I use. That is foolishness, silliness, vanity: “my will is not god’s will.” What? That is like saying that this one branch over here is not part of the tree. That is total nonsense. Only one deep in maya/error/sin would assert a personal will that is not itself the expression of divine will.

So, if you get the logic of the analogy, then it is possible to experience the behavioral process of condemnation from an entirely distinct perspective. Condemnation, like so many processes in language, is always an expression of an inner purpose. It is always the will of God or it would not ever happen.

Condemning something sets up a hypothesis or theory focusing on that something. It is a sorting process of rejecting something consciously while still giving it some energy and attention (like a root system feeding a branch). \

As the condemnation “hypothesis” gets explored, people eventually may come to appreciate something they previously condemned. It is like 7 year old boys making fun of girls then, by the age of 14, reversing their rejection to adoration… for the exact same girls perhaps (now young women).

At age 7, the boys need to develop certain qualities of masculinity, which means getting the distinctions of masculinity. By age 14, the same feminine traits that were repulsive may suddenly be attractive (of course, noting that there is an immense physiological difference between 7 year old girls and 14 year old girls) – a new polarity or charge is created, but first we may express our divine purpose by condemning something as we focus primarily elsewhere. “That energy is too much for me right now!”

Later, at age 14, a boy tends not to ridicule 7 year old girls with antagonism, but perhaps with appreciation or at least neutrality. Thus what before was actually in some ways truly terrifying (yuck, 7 year old GIRLS!) is later the object of light-hearted teasing, like saying nonsense things to a neighbor or cousin: saying “oh, now you are acting like a 7 year old” to someone who actually is 7.

7 year old boys can be quite mean to little girls, with the classic behavior of pulling pigtails and so on. 14 year old boys do not typically do that, right? They may tease little girls, but they just are not INTERESTED enough to actually put out the energy of condemning 7 year old girls because 7 year old girls are no longer a THREAT to the average 14 year old boy.

What is the bottom line of 7 year old boys condemning and ridiculing girls? “I am too immature to contain my intense attraction to the feminine, so it is best for now for me to push away any feminine magnet in my midst. When I mature further, I may chase after what I have chased away. I may even use the same words like ‘I hate you’ but said with a ‘devilish’ smile, a lusty honesty, a playful non-chalance.”

Condemnation is simply revealed as a developmental stage. Those in the middle of that stage may not see that. To them, one part of the tree must be good and one part must be evil. They simply condemn condemnation, establishing behaviorally that they are still in that stage of condemnation.

Instead of condemning many branches as evil, they condemn the behavior of condemning as evil. Again, that is the extreme of irony, of silliness, of vanity.

Upon recognizing this, the tree of life is revealed to be holy- complete. Then, unconditional love shifts from being a good idea that we may talk about until we are blue in the face to something we do, a behavior, the activity or process of loving. Every stage on the way to the process of unconditional loving is part of the process of unconditional loving, just as every stage on the way to being a butterfly IS itself already the process of the emergence of a butterfly.

Some caterpillars may go around condemning butterflies (or caterpillars). That may change nothing as to their future.

Words are trivia. Notice the energy patterns directly.

Caterpillars are part of the process that is butterfly. Yes, a butterfly is a PROCESS, a development, an activity, an act of God- which includes “caterpillar.”

Condemnation is part of the process of unconditional loving. Yes, unconditional loving is a PROCESS, a development, an activity, an act of God- which includes “condemning.”

Do not miss the forest for the tree. Or, if it fits for you, focus elsewhere and miss the forest for the tree! FINE, JUST BE THAT WAY! Either way, there is no forest except for a mutltide of trees.


%d bloggers like this: