Posts Tagged ‘attention’

Self-respect comes from self-acceptance

May 21, 2014
Self-respect comes from self-acceptance
(An audio version expanding on the following script will be uploaded within the next 16 hours.)
Let’s talk about you. Forget about the world for a moment. If there is enough stability for you to take a moment to simply forget about it now, then do that. Just like you do when you are sleeping, simply let your focus dissolve.
Withdraw any attention from the concerns that you have had in the past. Allow those concerns to subside and dissolve, at least temporarily.So, what is the present focus of your attention? Is it these words?

What about attention to your own body? What about noticing your own breathing… and then slightly slowing down the pace of your breathing?
Next, let’s talk about acceptance. People sometimes talk about accepting others, or even how they wish other people would be more accepting. Set that aside for a moment. Let’s talk about self-acceptance.Have you ever been afraid of displaying an emotion? Can you accept that you were so afraid that you interrupted or suppressed a display of emotion?

You may have even been so concerned about other people’s future interaction with you that you pretended in order to avoid perceived risks or increase perceived opportunities. You mayhave hid your real experience and presented false displays.You may have acted. You may have played a role.

Can you accept the possibility that you may have done some of that and also that you may in the future? You may de-emphasize or hide certain details and you may emphasize others. You may play around with the details of stories. You may experiment. You may explore.However, some of the experiments may be unproductive or even disappointing. Fortunately, you can learn from disappointment. Whenever you experiment, if you are experiment from the mode of curiosity, then no matter what results arise, you would be willing to learn from them because you are fundamentally curious. Any other response to results indicates that curiosity is not the primary dynamic in operation.

Sometimes, people may be tense and may act not so much from curiosity as from fear. Perhaps they are given an assignment by an authority and, with little or no real curiosity in the subject matter, the subject is explored anyway. Perhaps they experiment not to actually learn, but merely to survive the experiment. They may experience anxiety throughout the process.

Perhaps they are just preparing for a test. Maybe they are more interested in the test (and in performing well on the test) than they are in the subject matter. They may experience test anxiety during the test as well as prior to the test, just in anticipation of the future test.

That is all quite typical for modern education. The subject matter is presented based on a curriculum created by special interests. They want to focus the students on particular matter and perhaps even to distract them from certain other material deemed inappropriate, disruptive, or even just trivial or irrelevant.

It is basically the same issue as with the mainstream media. Their function is to program the attention, perception, and behavior of the masses.

Commercial advertisements program the attention, perception, and behavior of the masses. Educational programming also programs the attention, perception, and behavior of the masses.
What should you value most? What should you condemn as disgusting or upsetting?

Educational institutions and mainstream media provide a variety of answers to the masses. If something already is upsetting to you, then there is probably some portion of the mainstream media that will encourage you to stay upset, to be outraged about that, and to experience lasting distress.

Which issues should the masses experience with paranoia? Which should they argue about? What should they find offensive? How much guilt should the masses experience in regard to each particular issue?

However, there are also programs designed to distract the masses from ever experiencing distress. They may sooth or pacify the masses, but then arouse other passions in the masses such as hope.

What should you glorify as wonderful or uplifting? What should you worship with your attention? What should you purchase? What campaign should you support? What movie should you see? What should you wear? What should you say? What should you think? How should you feel?

None of that is self-acceptance either. One type of programming creates attractions and another creates repulsions. Attractions and repulsions are natural, but when they are programmed, that certainly can dilute instinctual attractions and repulsions.

Self-acceptance includes an accepting of the entire range from instincts to programs. If an attraction is present, it is present. If a repulsion is present, it is present.
Self-acceptance allows for accepting the experience of frightened shames and the hiding of experiences. Also, one may recognize programmed enthusiasms and speculative expectations, as well as the faking of “positive” experiences in order to promote a particular social outcome.

Self-acceptance allows for me to accept my past record of condemnations. I can accept that I may have condemned others and I may have condemned myself.

I can accept that others may have similar experiences to mine as well as experiences that are in some ways distinct from mine. I can accept that some things about me are very common while others are rare or even rather unique.

I can experience self-suppression, self-rejection, self-deception, and self-acceptance. I may have pretended to be other than I am. I may do so in the future.I may experience guilt or shame or gratitude or pride. Arrogance and humility are both available to me.

I may experience self-respect. With that background experience, I may interact with others in a mode that spreads my own self-respect. I may be respectful of others.

If I disagree, I may be silent or vocal. I may be respectful or, if not, then I may apologize.I may perceive that my best alternative in a particular case is to pretend. I may withdraw or I may remain still or I may select a target destination to move toward.

From self-acceptance, I can accept all of the possible ways that I can relate to the various elements of my life (as well as the world beyond what I identify as my life). I can use every label and every interpretation. I can experience the full range of human experience.I can accept all of my own humanity and all of humanity. I can accept all of my own life and all of life.

I can experience respect for my life and for all of life. I can withdraw any condemnations that I may have made in the past about my past. I can discontinue condemnations and condemnation itself, at least temporarily.
Self-acceptance brings relief and leads to self-respect. Self-respect results in an expanded sense of freedom.I may experience profound freedom as well as varying degrees of restriction. The boundary of freedom is also the boundary of restriction. Where the two meet is the boundary between them. I can accept that there is a sense of boundary and also accept that the boundary can change, at least temporarily.

The genesis of a new realm called “possibility”

April 26, 2013

The genesis of a new realm called “possibility”

 bob feldman grandfather and grandkids
Language revolutionizes life
Mandelbrot set: first 20 iterations of equatio...

Mandelbrot set: first 20 iterations of equation z = z²+c plotted for different complex constants c. Fractal first studied by Benoît Mandelbrot. Graphics generated with 13 lines of code in R language. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Imagine that there is a clear relationship between language and all of the rest of life. Language is one form of activity of life. Right now, the activity of language is operating, right? However, that is also the activity of life, too!

So, it is clear what language is as well as what is not language. When viewing shapes of letters on a screen, it is life that recognizes the shapes of the letters as the shapes of letters. It is life that decodes the symbolic shapes and constructs words out of letters and then constructs ideas out of sequences of words. 
An idea means a pattern of attention. Life uses language to form ideas (patterns of attention).
But if there are letters on a screen, while the letters may be decoded by life as instances of language, life also recognizes that the screen itself is not language. The letters on the screen might be black, but their blackness is not language. The  letters that are not black are just as linguistic as the black ones, right?
So, what are all of these things that are not language? They are life. Life can use language to label various forms of life (patterns of life). 
A viewing screen is a pattern of life. A series of black shapes (letters) on this screen is also a pattern of life. One pattern is called language and the other is called life, but all of language is also life. 
Language is just a subcategory of life. In fact, language is the subcategorizing of life.
Life (using language) can distinguish black shapes from the white background of a viewing screen. Language is a tool. Language is a creation of life. Life is the authority or creator of language and therefore of all that is formed through language.
Life is the generator of language. The genesis of language is one function of life. Life creates language to organize attention (perception, experience).
How is this important?
In the beginning, life separates the light from the dark using language. Life also uses language to isolate the night from the day and the heavens from the earth. Life uses language to subcategorize the intrinsic, unalterable unity of life.
If life uses language to subcategorize mammals and then primates and then humans, that is not a dividing of life in to 3 isolated categories. Linguistic categories can overlap. Language can categorize “for the last 12 days” and “since the last time we talked” as well as “all of last week.” Those subcategories overlap. They are not completely exclusive.
Language involves patterns of attention. Attention can concentrate by focusing or can relax by expanding or opening. For instance, primate is more specific than mammal. Human is even more precise than primate.
How wide open is life? Well, how wide open is language? Language FORMS patterns of attention. Language organizes attention.
So, a shift in the patterns of language produces a shift in the patterns of attention and perception and experience. In other words, language is extremely important in altering the experience of life.
What about “me?”
Me is a category in language. Life organizes language and, through the use of language, life organizes pattern of attention (experience, perception). “Me” is one type of experience.
During dreamless sleep, there is no operation of the language of me. Prior to a certain age of childhood, human infants are not using language to operate with the experience of me.
Me is an idea, a pattern of attention (a pattern of experience). In addition to “me,” “we” is also an equally valid linguistic pattern for the organizing of attention. “We” can refer to a small group of people or to all primates or to all mammals, etc…. 
Me and we are basic, common examples of linguistic identities (identifyings of language). Another example of an identity would be the use of a geographic reference, like “New York.”
If “New York bans assault weapons for police officers” or if “New York legalizes gay marriage for minors,” do those sequences of words make sense? Are they logically (linguistically) coherent?
New York can grow or shrink (in human population). It can win or lose (like in a sporting event). It can heat up or cool down. It can get wet. It can be attacked. It can mourn. It can vote for a particular political candidate. It can reduce imports or exports, increase in income, decrease in rates of home ownership or experience a wave of a certain illness or a crime spree.
New York is a pattern of language. It is a type of language pattern called an identity, similar to me or we.
By the way, what exactly is the boundary of New York? Is it a city limit? Is it a coastline? What happens if sea levels change? What happens if New York City annexes a neighboring unit of language?
reacting against "something wrong" as in the propaganda of organized coercion 
What about “life?”
Remember, New York does not really have any existence independent of language (and the rest of life). Without language, there is no boundary between New York and the rest of life (such as this screen or the letters of these words on this screen). If you want to know whether a particular viewing screen is IN New York or OUT of New York, that is going to involve some rather complex “social constructions” of language.
So, life is not hard to identify. Life knows that life is life. Life does not need to refer to a dictionary or a birth certificate to know whether life is living. Life does not need language to be alive.
Life is actually the master over it’s tool, language, and over all of the divisions or subcategories “created” by language, such as “me” and “we.” Me does not actually do anything independent from “life itself.” There is nothing outside of life.
Life is the Almighty, the Eternal, the Everpresent. Other linguistic symbols for that idea include “reality” and “nature” and “Allah” and “God.” In any language (Arabic, Hebrew, English, etc…), there is at least one word that symbolizes the beginningless, endless, undivided, inclusive source of all language.
By the way, life does not perform a ritual and THEN become eternal. Eternal life is always eternal and always will be. Eternity is not something that is going to start eventually right after we finish with more important things!
spiritual authority and the forgotten essentials of buddhism
Inherently, all linguistic identifyings (identities) are just forms of life. All of creation is just patterns of attention organized through language (as in through what might be called “Logos” in the Greek language, which is a common term used in Christian cultures).
So, what is creating this sequence of words? What is viewing it and recognizing it?
Valid answers include “life,” “me,” “my eyes,” “the reflection of light sensed by this brain,” and so on. Language can also say “my hands made my fingers press the keys and type the letters” or “a primate created this” or “we did it!” 
All of those are coherent or valid. Maybe New York will like it. Maybe not.
Is this “good news?”
Well, to the extent that this may seem new, we could call it good news. It may actually be a rather ancient principle. Some extremely famous celebrity people like Moses and Mohammed and Abraham and Jesus and even Buddha may have gone on and on about this principle.
Life may keep repeating this message in hundreds of languages and thousands of proverbs. Life seems to really be intrigued by it’s relationship to language (to it’s “creative” tool or function). Life organizes it’s own attention through language- over and over and over.
There are lots of variations and revisions of this idea, such as “people really should give up their personal will to the divine will of the creator.” That is actually not the same as this distinction of life being Almighty and perfectly forming all personal experience as perfect expressions of life.
This is not about giving up personal will. This is about life recognizing clearly the functioning of it’s own creation: language. This is not about official membership in a religious club. This is about a spiritual recognition.
Dr.Suess2 034
What about all of “my” problems?
Well, life could keep creating that pattern of attention (that experience), at least occasionally. Consider that historically  life keeps creating lots of worshipers of “my” problems (their own problems). For life, apparently that is not a problem, but just one activity among others.
So, linguistic identifying is not inherently a problem. In fact, without language, nothing could be labeled “a problem.”
However, a lack of clarity about what linguistic identifying is can lead to various opportunities for attention to begin to focus on what linguistic identifying is and how it might be important or interesting. Through the use of language, life can experience sin and shame and even arguing over literal interpretations.
It is entirely valid to argue over literal interpretations. However, if life looks very attentively at the two words “literal interpretations,” one might find those two words rather ironic when placed next to each other like that.
How could an interpretation ever be literal? All interpretations are interpretative. All languages are symbolic. In other words, language itself is not literal, but poetic.

So, forget “literal interpretations” and realize what language is. It is your tool. You are life and you always have been. You are not a linguistic identifying. Linguistic identifying is an activity of life, and life is what you ARE.
Linguistic identifying is one of your ways of organizing patterns of attention (ideas). Linguistic identifying is something that you can do. Linguistic identifying is your tool.
By you, I do not mean an exclusive personality. I could use the word we and we could use the word you.
Linguistic identifying is something that we can do. Linguistic identifying is our tool.
“Your personal will” or “my personal will” are also just linguistic identifyings. Life can identify like that. Life can also say “all of this is not the activity of a personal will, but the activity of the Almighty, Eternal life which does whatever it does through appearing as this ME, which is it’s creation, it’s tool, like a branch is just the subcategory of a vine. The vine of the tree of eternal life is within each of it’s branchings, within all of US, each of YOU. Even this viewing screen is life’s tool. These letters are just life’s tool. Language and all activities of linguistic identifying are also only tools of life, functions of life, organizings of life.”
If any of that happens to remind you of something that someone famous once said, then consider that life has been quite committed to at least occasionally reminding itself of this principle. Life has been organizing it’s attention to focus on the activity of language itself.
Realize what language is. It is your tool for creating patterns of attention (experience).
spiritual authority and the forgotten essentials of buddhism
spiritual authority and the forgotten essentials of buddhism
spiritual authority and the forgotten essentials of buddhism
spiritual authority and the forgotten essentials of buddhism

Attention on language (and linguistic boundaries of identity)

July 25, 2012


English: An overview of Tamil language learning.

Attention is distinct from language. Attention is this “nothing” that is back “here” reading this language out there on the screen (that “not me” of little shapes of alphanumeric characters, whether still or animated).

Attention can identify in language with a memory of old language about “how I really am” and “who I am” and so on. Those constructs in language are called self-images or identities or personas or characters. Those constructs always refer through language back to a past (a construction of the past in language). The self-image (or self-concept, self-conceiving) is a product of some past conditioning and training, a construct in language from the past about the past. If there is a comment about the future from the self-image, that future is still just a linguistic construction based on language learning in the past, a projection.

Boundary (topology)

Boundary (topology) (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

For instance, if I speak about what I am planning to do in the next hour (the future), that commentary must be rooted in the past. Why? Because commentaries involve language and “my language” is always an incremental exploration rooted in past linguistic adventures (commentaries).

So, attention can notice the forming of statements about “how I am special,” but attention can also recognize that there is nothing special about attention. Attention is not unique at all. What is special (as in widely varying) are the linguistic identifyings of a particular way of relating to a particular past (as “exclusively mine” as well as “our past” and so on).

Attention can notice memories arising (the arising of perceptions and the labeling of those perceptions as “my memories”). What is the boundary between dreams and imagination and memory? There may be no absolute boundary except in language. In fact, outside of language, there may be no such thing as an absolute boundary.

Girls learning the American Sign Language.

Girls learning the American Sign Language. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Outside of language, is there any boundary between “that side of the room” and “this side of the room?” Is there any boundary between “the front of my hand” and “the back of my hand?” We can say that there is a physical boundary between “the space under the table” and “the table.” However. is that really a boundary or just a variation?

One part of the earth is wet and one part is dry, so there is a variation and those variations can be named, but how many different boundaries are there along the spectrum of wetness and dryness? Are there exactly two boundaries: wet earth and dry earth? Are there exactly four boundaries: dry earth, moist earth, wet earth, and “bodies of water?”

What is the exactly boundary between a stream, a river, a bay, and an ocean? Is there a boundary between the waves and the ocean?

My 1 Year Old eating his birthday cake

Image by FrankGuido via Flickr

Boundary exists in language. Variations in physicality are distinct from the linguistic labels applied to those variations. As attention develops a vocabulary, more and more precise variations can be labeled and recognized. Recognizing something involves labeling it in language, identifying a pattern and naming it or coding it symbolically.

rusting foreground boundary

rusting foreground boundary (Photo credit: jhave2)

Language is the source of identity. Language is the source of boundary. Language allows for the perceiving of boundary. One form of linguistic boundary is identity. Identity is a linguistic construction of how to relate to the past (and, by default, the future).

Attention is distinction from anything perceived, such as the perceiving of something as a “familiar memory.” Attention can noticing itself labeling itself as supreme, eternal, omnipotent, omnipresent, as well as extremely dramatic and playful. Attention has quite a lot of personality!

In fact, attention has all of the personalities. Attention has all of language (including all parts of all languages) and thus attention has all boundaries of identity and character. Attention has all perception. There is nothing that attention does not have.

For attention, anything is possible. For an identity bounded in language, it may seem foolish to construct the words of “anything is possible.”

"The Tower of Babel" by Pieter Brueg...

“The Tower of Babel” by Pieter Bruegel the Elder. Oil on board, 1563. The Tower of Babel symbolises the division of mankind by a multitude of tongues provided through heavenly intervention. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

For God (which may be another label for attention), the wisdom of the identity may be recognized as foolishness. For God, nothing is impossible. Any construction in language is possible, even the possibility of “the impossible.” Without attention, there is no such thing as the linguistic label “impossible” or “unreal” and so on.

Everything that is possible points directly to attention. Even the impossible points directly to attention.

Only attention can recognize the secret of words. Without attention, there is no such thing as recognition and no such thing as a secret and no such thing as words and no such thing as “no such thing.”

Only attention can say “I am just an isolated identity in language. I am not attention. I am not God. I am only this but not that.” Only attention can form a self-image. Only attention can recognize that self-images are just perceptual variations labeled with linguistic constructions about “my past” as distinct from “my future” or “your past” or God’s past” and so on.

Coptic cross modified

Coptic cross modified (Photo credit: Wikipedia)


Step inside a new reality

July 24, 2012

open door in field

Imagine that a joker walked through a free-standing doorframe in the middle of a field and then came up to you and said “Hey,  I can give you what you really want, what you value most, what you can only get through me, your magic genie Santa Claus of a God: I will give you anything you could desire, including power and authority over the entire world, including even treasures and romance and utopia and fame and glory, but in exchange for that you must give away your attention.” Could anyone accept such a devil’s bargain? Can anyone give away their own attention?

If attention focuses on attention itself, what does attention find? If attention focuses on attentive introspecting, would learning be possible? If learning happens, isn’t every instance of learning a discovery of a new reality- not actually isolated from the rest of reality, but another part of reality that may have never been witnessed until the moment of discovery?

Speaking subjectively (poetically, figuratively), then “a new reality” could simply be a label for any new perception. After all, all perception is a real perception, right?

Yoga Class at a Gym Category:Gyms_and_Health_Clubs

Yoga Class at a Gym Category:Gyms_and_Health_Clubs (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

There are no essential instructions for introspection. To study one’s own language is introspective. To study’s one’s body or one’s physical movements (like in an aerobics class or hatha yoga class) is also introspective.

Further, to study language at all is already introspective, because anything that you study becomes familiar to you, becoming yours. To even study human physiology or biology or biochemistry again does not exclude introspection (self-discovery). Isn’t your physical organism included in what you can reference when say use the label “me?” To the extent that ecology or economics or geology or law are important in any human life, even studying those subjects inherently involves an element of introspection, of “how I am relating to what is related to me.”

Every observation or experience includes the process of subjective perceiving. So, there is really no getting away from introspection.

Step Back to Reality

Step Back to Reality (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Similarly, there is no getting away from reality. Even dreaming is not getting away from reality. Dreaming is just the reality of dreaming.

Where is the boundary claimed between “reality” and “unreality?” Where is the linguistic boundary declared between “I” and “not I?”

Famous people, whose names I do not recall at this moment, have said things like “Seek God and you will find yourself. Seek yourself and you will find God.” Maybe the point is that everywhere attention goes looking for anything, attention will always be there. Can you escape from your own attention?

Put another way, can attention escape from you? Can you isolate yourself from attention? Can you isolate attention from yourself?

If you passed out and went unconscious, falling down in the middle of crowded forest full of people, would you actually fall down or would whatever happens to any remaining physical organism be completely independent of attention and perception? When you are in deep sleep, do you sleep, or is perhaps there just a sleeping body without any functioning of attention, like no conscious identifying of a self or a body or anything else?

Category:Educational research

Category:Educational research (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Maybe you are just a body. Maybe a body is just a vehicle of attention or consciousness, or a form or formation composed of attention and consciousness.

What if a body is like a garment?  Or, what if the identity in language is like a garment? During the manifesting of schizophrenia, personality can suddenly shift. So, which is more fundamental: the physical organism or a particular personality or identity or character? Doesn’t personality eventually change over time anyway? A senile elderly person may have an “infantile” personality, right, as well as someone who is barely awake, or in a hypnotic trance, or extremely drunk (in a “stupor”).

What if there was a recognition that a physical organism can produce the function of attention and then there was another recognition that the attention can identify or relate in a variety of ways? It is not called schizophrenia when a person is an actress and the actress performs different roles with different names and different characteristics or characters (personas or personalities), but what happens to the actress when the actress’ infant cries to nurse? The actress and all of her characters may simply disappear, with a nursing mother showing up instantly “replacing” or “displacing” the actress.

Attention may be a function of “the” body. Language can also be identified as a bodily fuction, as in a neurological development or process. However, attention is quite distinct from language. The Logos is distinct from The Eternal Living Presence.

No matter where you go, The Eternal Living Presence is there “with” you, abiding in you. Language can form the words “I am not the Eternal Living Presence,” but consider what is directly observable: is the presence of a particular linguistic formation evidence of anything but the presence of that particular linguistic formation?

English: Santa Claus with a little girl Espera...

English: Santa Claus with a little girl Esperanto: Patro Kristnasko kaj malgranda knabino Suomi: Joulupukki ja pieni tyttö (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Once upon a time, the Devil walked up to Jesus and said, “Obviously, when you look around, you can tell that neither of us are really here. We are not even real. There is no such thing as us. There are no such thing as identities in language. There is no such thing as attention. There is no such thing as reality. There is no such thing as language. However, if there were such a thing as language or attention or reality, then it would be my duty and my privilege to condemn it, to stop it, to prevent it, or at least to make jokes about it until someone starts laughing so hard that everything else seems extremely easy. By the way, just because Santa Claus is just an identity in language, yes, this is a real beard, so please stop pulling on it or else I will throw you over my lap and spank your bottom.”


attention (Photo credit: gordonr)

the secret of reverse pyschology propaganda: resistance is creative attention

April 1, 2012

Resistance is attention and attention is creative.

This posts arises from a dialogue. Here is how it started.

Reverse of the Series 1934 $100 Gold Certificate

Reverse of the Series 1934 $100 Gold Certificate (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Mrs. Hope Johnson wrote:
“Thanks everyone for your comments on this post. They have helped me to more deeply understand resistance and how it can be used to bring about peace and freedom.

Here’s a link to my most recent article, inspired by my interaction with all of you: ”


My response to her:

Hope, here is my reply to your post, with two links added at the end here. Your conversation is to me like a push against a stack of dominoes that I have been setting up for the last 7 years. Thanks and do enjoy. Comments are of course welcome.

US gold certificate (1922)

US gold certificate (1922) (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

re: “Just as eating optimal nutrients resists decay in the body by promoting physical health, so too does peaceful assertion of individual rights resist controlling or oppressive governmental forces by promoting freedom.”

I think of this re “assertion:” as we exercise authority, freedom, sovereignty, responsibility, and prudence, we practice intelligence in our investments of attention and other resources such as money. We organize our finances not around the default legal structures that benefit governments- like automatically putting our assets and revenues under “our own” SSN (it’s actually the SSA’s account, not yours or mine) and in our own legal name (again, a structure that is “legal fiction” as a corporate citizen franchise under the accounting and jurisdiction of the USA or UK or EU etc), such that they are exposed to maximum taxes and court liabilities.

In regard to the legal status of “CITIZEN,” I offer this quotation:
Citibank… is deemed a citizen of any state in which
it physically maintains branches.” – US District Ct of
Appeals, 1st Circuit, December 19, 2005.
See also

Further, there is the matter of the prudent allocation of investments, whether in a charitable trust or other structure explicitly exempt from taxation and legally protected by courts from most legal challenges or controversies. Most people ignore the obvious set-ups of recent decades, such as the retiring of the baby boom, and thus were surprised by market developments that I and many others have been forecasting for quite a while. (See

Rather than benefit from the emerging shift, many have poured themselves deeply into debt, aggressively entering markets like real estate and, more recently, gold. Citing the exact same rationalizations as gold investors did in the late 1970s, gold investors may be almost as disappointed as they were from 1980 to 2000… or even as disappointed as mainstream real estate investors have been recently and [according to my projections] will be much more so in the next few years… or even as disappointed as holders of US gold certificates in 1933, when the Federal Reserve foreclosed on the debts owed to it by the US Treasury and produced a “voluntary confiscation” by criminalizing the possession of gold certificates by US Citizens (but not foreigners, who were outside of the jurisdiction of the US and were not the underwriters or sureties of the debts incurred or billed to the taxpaying citizens by those Doing Business As the USA).

Detail of Preamble to Constitution of the Unit...

Detail of Preamble to Constitution of the United States Polski: Fragment preambuły Konstytucji Stanów Zjednoczonych (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Citizens may complain of constitutions and rights, rather than exercising their intelligence and responsibility. They may ignore the provisions in the US Constitution for the explicit acknowledgment of treaties as one of three components of the supreme law of the land:

Here is the “Supremacy Clause” of Article VI: “The judges of every
state shall be bound” by “this Constitution, the Laws of the United
States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof, and all Treaties
made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United
States, [which] shall be the supreme Law of the Land.”

For more, see

The basic thing is that people can argue amongst themselves while bullets and bombs are flying, or they can take action to promote security and prosperity. Operations of government begin and end. They are not to be relied on as if they are God- and neither is gold or silver or any currency or investment or legal structure.

I’ve written extensively on the psychology of what is shifting as well as the history and economics. Rather than allowing change to inform their own actions and benefit dramatically from the most obvious and sudden redistribution of economic resources that I personally know of, and perhaps in the recorded history of mankind, how many of us are instead complaining about things like that the FDA is “full of sh!t” STILL. Seriously, when was that not the case? (Their information and agenda is limited…. So what?)

Those who are arrogant shall be humbled. Those who are asleep shall be wakened. Those who are antagonistic shall be mired in conflict. Those who are judgmental shall be agonizing in the hell of shame and guilt.

Deutsch: Polizeiwagen der Federal Reserve Poli...

Deutsch: Polizeiwagen der Federal Reserve Polizeil (Bundesbankpolizei) English: Federal reserve police car, St. Louis, MO (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Pieces of this message are not new to any of us, right? However, when the last piece of the puzzle is put into place, even those of us who have not been looking at the picture on the box in which the puzzle came… will know what the puzzle shows when assembled. By the way, if the governments or mass media or churches give us a boxtop that does not match the actual puzzle that is in the box, that does not mean that we should wait for them to give us the correct blueprint or build the puzzle for us.

Put it all together. Do the math.

Many people will experience dramatic increases in various forms of suffering. We are not at fault for their suffering- nor then for own our past suffering. However, we have the opportunity now to learn as well as to teach.

The meek shall inherit the earth and receive abundance overflowing, but the price of giving up vanity and self-righteousness may seem too high for some, so life may “turn the tables” and raise the relative cost of keeping vanity. Thank heavens for that.

(see also:

Published on: Oct 27, 2009

Description: Newspaper clipping USA, Woodrow W...

Description: Newspaper clipping USA, Woodrow Wilson signs creation of the Federal Reserve. Source: Date: 24 December 1913 (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Related articles

why I do not believe in the existence of atheists

March 29, 2012

Below is a dialogue between myself and Mark Newbrook, “resident” Linguist of Skeptical Humanities (as of a few weeks ago):

Major levels of linguistic structure

Major levels of linguistic structure (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

This dialogue emerged from my recent post linked below, with Mark’s original comment (not interspersed with my reply) posted at this link:

…It is claimed here that language means nothing and never will mean anything.
It is claimed where? Let’s imagine that someone did claim exactly what you stated. Wouldn’t it be self-evident as nonsense and thus inspire no further comment?
Given my deep appreciation for parody, let’s imagine that I may have said “language does not mean anything.” If I were to say something so obviously absurd, such as “this sentence is not an instance of language,” that might only be for the “philosophical” point of playfully demonstrating the absurdity of the issue.
Of course language has meaning. For instance, one obvious definition would be that language means “symbolic codes for directing the attention and behavior of other humans.”
However, what I may have written (and I also reserve the right to make innocent typographical mistakes), is that no particular symbolic code has any particular meaning. The same word can denote a few very different things or a multitude of not very related things, and that is just denotation- not even connotation.
The mere fact that there is such a thing as connotation (as well as “secret codes”) points to the fundamental reality of language: the meaning is not in the words themselves. The meaning is in the social context in which the words arise- not just in the context of syntax, but of non-linguistic social “cues.”
From sounds, language arises. However, the mere fact that it is possible NOT to be fluent in a particular language is prima facie evidence that the language itself inherently means nothing. Only in a particular social context can language arise, and the social context DEFINES the meaning of the language.
What do these shapes on this screen “mean” to my cat or my infant? Nothing at all.
What do these shapes on this screen “mean” to you? Something very specific!
Language is amazing. In fact, it is so amazing that I titled this video that:
Now, is this supposed to be news to linguists or anyone else? Of course not. It is self-evident. Everyone knows from direct experience that language is amazing and that social contexts define the meaning of language, like “I love you” can be spoken with several different tones that all communicate different WAYS OF RELATING, such as the soothing “oh, sweetie, I love you” and the apologetic “Really, I love you” and the defensive “hey, I love you, alright?” and the longing, manipulative “but, but…. I love you!”
Actually, it is all manipulative. Language is manipulating. That is what it is for- at least in the broad sense of manipulating as influencing or re-organziing.
So, I state the obvious not to inform you of something new, but to establish a particular context or way of relating.  Now, let’s explore from here together, given that what we have been doing all along is self-evidently nothing more than that.
English Language and Linguistics

English Language and Linguistics (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

  Subject to the major issues regarding how the term nothing is being used here, this viewpoint is, of course, contrary to prevailing opinion both popular and academic (the latter including both linguists and philosophers), and thus needs to be justified at this point. Indeed, it might be suggested that if language ‘means nothing’ it cannot itself be used to say anything useful.  And, while – as is proclaimed here (albeit in somewhat strange wording) – language can be seen as ‘a sequence of codes for the directing of attention’, it is generally taken as obvious that language has other functions and aspects in addition to this.
Such as? I challenge you to name one instance of language that is not directing my attention to whatever alleged instance of language you might name.
You could say that language is the moving of attention or the motion of intelligence or the activity of consciousness, but all that would be a trivial variation on the other statement. You can say that “unconscious linguistic events” do not qualify as “directing attention,” but that is limiting the verb “directing” to its transitive case only, which is not the only possible meaning.
Within language, it is accepted here that different words and letters are distinct.  (The use of the term letters seems to betray a folk-linguistic starting-point; a writer with knowledge of linguistics would instead talk here primarily of phonemes.)
…perhaps unless writing for an audience that may lack a knowledge of the formal lexicon of non-folk linguistics. Whatever, though…. Or are you unplayfully applying the standards of a academic linguistics journal to a non-academic linguistics journal internet blog entry?
  But these words and letters are all seen as variations on ‘nothing’ (this raises the above-mentioned issues regarding this term); and, while they do possess meaning (this apparently contradicts what is said earlier), this supposedly arises only ‘through perception’. Concepts are identified as ‘linguistic formations’ arising ‘out of nothing’, which is ‘the capacity for linguistic formations to simply happen by themselves’.  Like individual words and ‘letters’, each specific language is distinct, being seen as ‘a specific set of distinct, isolated formations’ – and is ‘finite’, in contrast with ‘language itself’ which is ‘infinite’; it is not clear how the terms finite and especially infinite are to be understood here.  And boundaries between languages are, again, seen as different manifestations of ‘nothing’.  I find the conceptualising obscure at this point, and it is difficult to comment helpfully.
What if all concepts are inherently obscure and only so precise? What if the spectrum ranging between precision and obscurity is one which language can never escape?
Further, returning to the issue of language as a utilitarian (or “useful”) phenomenon, what if directing attention does not require any more precision than actually “required?” What if, upon the fulfillment of whatever amount of clarity is deemed subjectively “enough,” the activity of language simply ceases?
I add here brief comments on some specific points in later sections of the material.‘One language evolves into another, with perhaps an entire family of languages being similar to each other’While essentially ‘along the right lines’, this claim apparently mixes diachronic and synchronic points and needs to be clarified.  (The term evolve is also contentious here.)
I admit that in the case in point, I was just synchronicalizing mixtures of diachronology. Okay, I might have just made up those words, but apparently you made up synchronic and diachronic first before I did because, when I see those words, I instantly recognize that they are synonyms for harmeronomic diaxophosphate, by which I mean slightly unfamilair to me.

linguistics (Photo credit: quinn.anya)

‘Languages mix and influence each other.  Languages may be called distinct, but the boundaries between them shift’Although the reference to shifting boundaries is obscurely expressed and perhaps mis-conceptualised, these general points are, of course, very familiar to linguists. 
This reminds me again of my clearly stated disclaimer at the beginning of the article: “this is written exclusively to professional full-time linguists, both of them.”
‘If the boundaries shift, then the boundaries are arbitrary. In fact, the alleged boundaries between various languages are alive, existing only through the declaration of language’This appears obscure.  There may be a good (if familiar) point in the former of these two sentences, though it needs to be much more clearly expressed; but the second sentence, as expressed, is very strange (what do alive and declaration mean here?).
Alive means changing or evolving. And that was a great question: what do these words actually MEAN?
My analogy is this: how many colors are there. Are there exactly 6 colors, as any 2 year old can tell you? Or, are there actually 24 different colors, as anyone 4 year old with the big yellow box can tell you? Or, are there any number of colors depending on however many distinct labels one chooses to categorize?
Language is categorizing. How many languages are there? 214? 32,915? That is a trivial question. Fundamentally, there is one language which is language itself.
The most famous poets of human history, such as Lao Tzu and Buddha and Abraham, have referenced the singularity of that universal meta-language by such labels as Logos, Tao, and even The Heavenly Father, through which “the world of subjective experience” is “created” by what method: speech!
Name one word that is not fundamentally just a word. Yahweh? YHWH? Jehovah?
No, those are all words, too- though those “words” are all references to something “subtler than all other concepts.” Linguists who do not comprehend “metaphysics” may be liars, insofar as metaphysics and linguistics could be two labels for the same- but wait, that simply could not be possible to have two labels or appellations or names or titles for the exact same pattern, right?
What if when ignorant translators translate some ancient Sanskrit phrase in to the English words “name and form” and then call it “Buddhist mystical metaphysics,” that is an ENTIRELY ARBITRARY way of relating to those Sanskrit terms, though of course an entirely valid way of interpreting them or labeling them or translating them or relating to them? Was the Buddha a linguist or not? Well, if the English word “linguist” had not been invented by the time of his life, then how could he have been a linguist? Maybe he is finally now a linguist, but only became a linguist within the last few sentences- not that I care, by the way- but that brings me back to the earlier question raised by our academic correspondent of what is meant by declaration: by declaration, I mean all instances of language, as in all instances of the directing of attention, including gestures or then again possibly not… 😉
Anyway, there was no such thing as a linguist until someone created the term “linguist” and then declared self-authoritatively themselves to be the apt target of such a label. “Linguist” is a totally arbitrary label like all labels of symbolic code, but many “academic” linguists may or may not pretend otherwise, even though they do not deny the self-evidence of any of it.
Before there was a linguist, there was language. Linguist is just an instance of language, as is “The Buddha” and “metaphysics” and “spiritual poetry” and “incurable diaxyphosphatitis.”
I am the author of language. Why? Because I said so.
Is it even true, though? Well, declarations in language are never exactly TRUE. They are just more or less USEFUL. Precision (aka “TRUTH”) is a spectrum invented in language and language never can get all the way to the end of a spectrum that only exists as a linguistic concept.
In other words, precision is just a relative term. In fact, because precision is just a relative term, all terms are just relative terms. Truth is just a relative term. Language is just a relative term. “Absolute” is, ironically, just a relative term.
In the ancient Hindu tradition of Advaita (“non-dualism”), the fundamental relativity of all terms of linguistic relating is relatively recognized as just one way of relating to the absolute relativity of all language, except of course for the word “joke,” which is actually not a word at all. 😉
‘Is Creole [= a particular creole language? (MN)] a language? Clearly it is entirely composed of other languages.  [Not necessarily the case. (MN)]  However, it is also not a dialect of any particular language. What is it? It is whatever it is called!’It is not clear that there is a genuine issue here regarding creoles as such.  There are relevant definitional-cum-philosophical issues at a more general level concerning the individuation of languages, the ‘language’-‘dialect’ distinction, etc.; but these are not rehearsed here.
Labelification is individuation. That was my point.
The fact is that “languages” is just a label and so is “dialects.” You can’t get away from the fact that all words are just symbolic categorical linguistic conceptualizations of individuation or division or duality. Beyond language is the non-duality called “nothing” by certain Buddhists, about which there is really not a lot that can be said, but then again, all language is an expression of that nothing and a labeling of that nothing and a directing of that nothing.
While quite contradictory, language is inherently contradictory. Or then again, maybe not. However, there either are or are not any instances of contra-diction except only in language. If language is not inherently contradictory, fine, then I take it back and contradict myself as if to demonstrate the point: language gives rise to the possibility of contradiction, not that it is at all important to point this out.
It may simply be a lot of fun. But that could be important, too, right?

‘Is there such a thing as “I” (“me”)? In many languages there is such a thing as “I” or similar concepts to the concept of “I.” However, “I” is fundamentally a concept, a construct of language, merely a thing. “I” is not itself fundamental (which is the ancient teaching called anatma).’

There, of course, are words meaning ‘I’ in all languages.  But it is not clear how significant linguistic facts of this kind might be for philosophical issues regarding the reality or otherwise of persons; as I have argued elsewhere, it is probably dangerous in a philosophical context to focus too heavily upon the ways in which ideas are expressed in specific languages – although this approach is common enough in mainstream ‘analytical’ philosophy.

What do you mean by the “reality or otherwise?” What are you talking about in reference to something besides reality?
“Person” is a real WORD. Isn’t that enough? Is it so dangerous for me to just come out and say what is self-evident? Next thing you know you are going to launch in to some obscure poetry about “nothing.” That would be very diaxyphoshate of you, sir!
 ‘Language is more fundamental than “I,” and nothing is more fundamental than language.’It is not clear what fundamental means here, or what this claim amounts to.


The same source presents  This material again deals with some linguistic issues, this time in the context of an essentially religious discussion involving claims regarding souls, sin, etc.  Linguistics, as an empirical discipline, cannot be grounded in specific theological viewpoints; and as an atheist I would prefer not to engage in this context in discussion which assumes a religious stance that I do not share.

“Religion” is just a category of language. If you deny the existence of that particular category of language, that is entirely alright with me.
As a worshiper of Santa Claus, I would just like to state for the record, your honor, that there is no such thing as mythology or poetry or humor. Also, I do not believe in atheists. There is simply no such thing, by which I mean no such word.
 However: it is undoubtedly true, as is claimed here, that it is a conceptual error to mistake a piece of language, such as a word, for the item in the non-linguistic world to which it refers.  Like the well-known picture of a pipe by Magritte, the word pipe is not itself a pipe.  Some such conceptual errors are potentially damaging.  But the further claim that ‘belief in words is the root of all malice or ill will’ is not adequately defended and appears vastly overstated.
I completely agree. I furthermore assert that the hypocritical idiot who made such a ridiculously dramatic accusation was entirely precise in an “absolute truth” kind of way. Forthwith, the diachronic subjective experiential pattern of “malice” is completely unrelated to words, which are just ways of relating, and therefore do not exist, at least not in the absolute sense of the word. I arrest my case.
More credentials of Mark:

Brahman asks: “who is this I?”

March 28, 2012
In ancient Latin, persona meant "mask.&qu...
Brahman by any other name is still the nameless – Image via Wikipedia

who wrote this? who reads it?

what could prevent me from being as I am?

what could disturb me from being as I am?

what could protect me from being as I am?

what could distract me from being as I am?

what could teach me to be as I am?

what could support me in being as I am?

what could help me to be as I am?

what could force me to be as I am?

Being is unconditional.

Being is unpremeditated.

Being is not created.

Being is not a phase or a stage.

Being is unpreventable.

Being is without beginning or end.

Being is beyond true or false.

Being is beyond self as a concept.

Being is impersonal.

Being is universal.

Being does not ask approval.

Being does not need validation.


a reply:

On Mon, Aug 1, 2011 at 9:03 PM, Angelina Alire wrote:

Angelina understands this as she reads it but can only attempt to imagine what it is to dissolve in to pure being. She asks to no one in particular, “What does one do with the ability to create a personality and play this “reality” when one has disolved their person, when one has died to self?” Things that make you go, “Hmmmmm“. Thanks for sharing, love.

Here is one possible reply:

Hi, God. Thank you for pretending to be a dumbass and asking stupid questions so that I have something to do.

This all reminds me of the saying “turn off the lightswitch and wait for the light to dissolve” or “turn off the video projector and then wait for the images to dissolve.” Remember, language is not the source of attention or intelligence, but just a form of intelligence or the moving of attention.

The “one” that would “dissolve their person in to pure being” is just a persona. Pure being can create personas and the instant that pure being does not create any persona, there is no persona (personal identifying) created, which means persona is not present… though pure being can make up any persona whenever wherever however.

So, there is nothing to dissolve over time. The very thought of “something that is fundamental and would be dissolving over time” is a sustaining of something that has no inherent stability.

The nature of the persona is that it is phenomenal, as in “not inherently real, temporary. momentary, incidental, trivial.” So, we do not say “turn off the lightswitch and wait for the light to dissolve” or “turn off the video projector and then wait for the images to dissolve.” The instant that pure being does not actively generate persona, pure being remains as it always is.

Persona does not diminish or dissolve pure being. Pure being can create any persona as well as the experience or identifying of “I am only this or that particular persona.” Or, pure being can notice linguistic identifying as just linguistic identifying.

It is like putting a new label on a jar of pickles and then saying that the new label has changed the contents of the jar. The labeling (the process of identifying) cannot change the contents of the jar or the jar itself. Adding pickles or removing them does not change the jar itself either.

However, pure being can pretend that an empty jar with a label that says pickles needs time for the pickles that were never in it to dissolve once the label is removed. Add a label or remove a label. The being is the one doing it all.

first Published on: Aug 2, 2011

Related articles

the wisdom of “Do something else”

March 23, 2012

“If my experience is that something is not working, do something else.”

originally titled: adapting to experiencing someone’s attention as being “unavailable”

First, consider how much of a priority it is for me to have that person’s attention be however available- like if life is giving me the feedback that “this one’s attention may not be very available for that,” so what?

Second, relax my attention from them in particular. Or maybe that comes first. Whatever.

Next, consider what could be a priority that IS available? Note: when I experience something as seeming “available” – as in accessible or practically relevant – that may be… practically relevant!


attention (Photo credit: gordonr)

Now, with attention to what seems available (as in seems practically relevant), does any particular possibility “stand out” as an obvious focus for my time and attention? Here is an example.

Let’s imagine that I happen to have a certain job. Within that job, there are certain things that I value, such as the paycheck and producing commissions that show up on the next paycheck. There are certain things that are very much within my direct influence, though other people may have some influence as well, of course.

So, I could focus on various propsective clients- like which ones do I make a priority for my attention and why? I could focus on adhering to various guidelines (or take actions to develop new ones and explore altering old ones).

Of course, I may encounter resistance, like from another person. I may encounter any variety of boundaries– money, schedule, cell phone reception issues, objections, etc….

For instance, If I am consistently re-prioritizing what to do, then that mode of operation expects to encounter boundaries sometimes. Patterns will eventually change. Boundaries will change. If I do not ever explore the boundaries, I may miss that old boundaries may no be longer binding- or I may miss that certain boundaries are more restrictive than I previously experienced.

So, one thing to do is to create a game. My experience of existing boundaries is simply part of the rules of the game as I define them. I define my experience of the boundaries and the context in which I frame them.

With regard to a paycheck, an obvious game is to (1) keep them coming and (2) maintain or even increase the amount of the pay. However, I might also choose to revise the game in terms of changing the amount of hours that I commit to the job. I could alter my schedule, increase my schedule, or reduce my schedule.

Let’s move on to relationships. If the priority of my game is for personal well-being or for fun or for family, those are all distinct contexts.

A focus on personal well-being asks “what’s in it for me?” By the way, if there is an immediate perceived threat to personal well-being, the importance of personal well-being may be suddenly clear.

A focus on fun asks things like “is this something that I would begin doing if I hadn’t already been doing it already?” A context of fun tends to presume that personal well-being issues are already satisfied and stable. In other words, people may not focus on fun when a waterline freezes or a tree penetrates the roof and the flood waters begin to approach the height of the power outlets.

So, fun is about doing something more or doing something less- or perhaps even interrupting it. While personal well-being is essential, fun is merely favorable.

A focus on family is also distinct from either of the above. Family priorities may involve the sacrificing not only of fun, but also of personal well-being.

One can identify family as a partnership of two specific people or even a large network of loose relationships, typically involving biological similarity. People who join together in business networks which they can simply transfer by selling stock shares are not likely to intentionally sacrifice personally for the benefit of the company.

On that note, it may be surprising how much that people expect large bureaucracies (such as governments, insurance corporations, and even large church organizations) to reliably support them as individuals (and operators of business). People often complain when organizations change their internal boundaries (by making a new criminal law or shutting down one of their facilities or merging with another operation and incorporating unfamiliar rules).

So, imagine that the global economy is shifting in some noticable way. Is this the first time that a noticeable economic shift has ever happened?

One can dismiss the noticable changes (perhaps as hopefully temporary) and instead keep favoring one’s old perspective on priorities and keep investing in familiar methods. That tends to produce unfavorable results which further tend to open people to re-prioritizing (to humble them or humiliate them).

Or, perhaps the seasonal climate is shifting in some noticable way. Is this the first time that a noticable climatic shift has ever happened?

Now, what if someone’s attention is shifting in some noticable way? Is this the first time that a noticable attention shift has ever happened?

When someone’s attention is noticably shifting, I might be open to being that someone and allowing my attention to shift, to re-prioritize. When life gives feedback for re-prioritizing, my willingness to receive that feedback and my capacity to adapt to it may produce noticable shifts in my experienced results.

My experience of personal well-being may be the result of my responsiveness to life’s feedback. My experience of fun and family may also be the result of my adaptiveness to life’s feedback. My relationship to my own experienced results is my relationship to life’s feedback. What else would be life’s feedback except for my own experienced results?

How willing I am to adapt to my own experienced results could make a difference for my future. If I am willing, then even a boundary as to my current capacity to adapt simply is experienced as an opportunity to learn and to collaborate with others who might have competence in some particularly relevant form of adaptiveness. My experience of my future may be a function of my willingness to adapt to my own experienced results, that is, my experience of responsibility for my own results as personal or “systemic.”

Am I willing to define myself as “a victim of the system?” Imagine that there might be a systematic program to present people with an identity as “the responsibility of the system.” I may be taught that I am the ward of the state, or the ward of the insurance company, or the ward of a particular church or business or even individual person, such as a parent as legal guardian for a minor child.

Of course, as a child presumed to be legally incompetent, such definitions might be quite accurate. So, is it all odd that there might be systematic programming to present people with an identity as “the responsibility of the system?” Consider that it would be odd if there were not such a programming.

So, we may have all been programmed as children that other particular people and groups are responsible for us. However, as adults, we may recognize that identifying one’s self as “a victim of the system” (or even a victim of any particular other person) may not be in the best interest of one’s own personal well-being. Some other identifying might produce favorable feedback from life as in favorably experienced results. Of course, “victim of the climate” or “victim of the global economy” or “victim of my children” are all possible identifyings in language. All identifying is adaptive, just not for any particular amount of time.

Consider that life’s feedback on my self-identifying is valuable. Further, consider that both nurturing and victimization are valuable. A government or church or private corporation or individual may provide me with some valuable attention and support, then stop doing so. The organization or person may cease to function. Or, life may give me the feedback of exposing me to the question of “what if you can do it yourself?”

Personal responsibility is not for everyone. In fact, huge numbers of people may functionally reject personal responsibility by maintaining the self-identifying of “victim.” With certain feedback from life, the adaptiveness of such self-identifying may eventually be noticed as only temporary.

Sometimes, personally experienced results may produce a new willingness to explore the language of one’s own self-defining, self-identifying, self-binding. Whose boundaries are my boundaries? When I speak of the boundaries of my own shifting attention, do I speak of those boundaries as my own, or as boundaries that a cruel and unusual life has imposed on me unjustifiably and maliciously? Do I speak of my own experienced results as life’s feedback (as in guidance or support) or as injustices and victimizations and complaints and someone else’s responsibility?

My relationship to life is my self-identifying. Does life victimize me (as life’s victim) or does life support and guide me (as life’s beneficiary)? How willing am I to be responsible for my own self-identifying? How willing am I to be responsible for my own experienced results?


Published on: Jul 2, 2011


Kara’s video response:

Related articles

clarifying confusion (language, economics, whorf, propaganda)

March 1, 2012
Image via Wikipedia

Confusion: what is it? Let’s be very clear about what confusion is. Then, we can explore one particular common form of confusion: going from confusion about that subject to clarity about it. About what? It is something that can be really obvious to anyone, as well as very relevant personally to someone in particular: economic change.

So, confusion is not just a lack of clarity. A lack of clarity is ignorance as in an awareness of awareness. There is recognized ignorance Ii know that I do not know about “that”) and there is of course unrecognized ignorance… which brings us to the subject of confusion.

Confusion is when one actually thinks something to be true which is not, or, in practical terms, confusion is when one considers a particular model or principle to be relevant when it is in fact inapplicable to a given case. The irrelevance in a particular case does not automatically mean that some model or paradigm is absolutely false or totally invalid in general, though that may also be true.

Of course, there are a few variations of confusion, like ways of relating to it in a particular case. First, there is being clear about what confusion is and then clear when it is present (“Ah, the model I have been operating with does not fit for this case! Isn’t that interesting?) Confusion can thus lead to curiosity or simply to dismissal, like this: “Ah, I believed that this new intervention would work, but now I see that in fact it is not working, and I do not have enough interest in this particular possibility to continue researching/experimenting/trouble-shooting, at least not for now. I’m done here!” (That is simply going from unrecognized ignorance to recognized ignorance, and then choosing to remain ignorant of some particular detail, or… perhaps even recognizing “Ah, now I know generally what would be involved in this project and, nearly clear about that, I decline to proceed with investing the relevant resources/time/attention.”)

Conflicts & Confusion
Image via Wikipedia

In other words, recognizing confusion is itself a shift into clarity. “I admit that I do not know how to do _____.” That moves something from confusion to mere ignorance- even if the only new clarity is in saying “I am clear only now that my perception of what could/would be required for fulfilling this possibility is in excess of my actual interest and/or ability.”

Of course, sometimes when we are confused about how to fulfill a certain clear value of ours, and we do know that we greatly value some possibility, then we might think of someone that we believe might be ale to help us, then approach them for help: like an expert at automobile mechanics or computer repair. Other times, we may be confused and unmotivated to explore something (because of an ignorance of how much we could later value that something), and yet open to leadership form others. So, a particular withdrawal from a project is not always a rejection of the possibility of later involvement. Rejecting some possibility can only happen in the present moment. Even things that we may say that we would never do- or never do again- may be things that we later do.

Further, we could even be confused, but resigned or cynical about that confusion- like “this is not working and I am going to pretend that I do not care, perhaps even convincing myself, all while I will go around and repeatedly criticize other people in regard to this same type of thing- that is, I may believe and sincerely say that I do not care about it but then focus huge amounts of attention on finding people who will validate my pronouncement that I do not care about it, then find more people to attack for caring about it when obviously no one should, etc etc etc…..”

So, I just mentioned rejection and then resignation and cynicism, which are also forms of rejection. When we reject the possibility of exploring something now, that is rejecting it. When we reject the possibility of something EVER happening, that is the realm of resignation and cynicism.

Resignation is the idea that some particular method of obtaining an outcome that we may admit to valuing… simply is not worth

Resignationexploring. With evidence to the contrary, resignation can suddenly disappear. Further, there may be a general openness ot other methods. Resignation is specific to all methods considered relevant. It is not an absolute dismissal of the possibility that there could already be or soon be a method available for fulfilling some valued propsect.

Cynicuism tends to involve pretendintg that we do not value something which we do value. In order to cover our cynicism, we do something quite distinct from resignation about methods; we may reject the possibility that some particular value of ours could ever be fulfilled by any method. Then, we may even move into the realm of denial.

Denying a possibility is when we believe that it could not be. Cynicism may be better defined as when we pronounce that something should not be- but not an outright denial of the possibility; there is still a faint glimmer of openness.

So, if we believe that something should not be (or could not be)- not just ignorant of it, but rejecting the possibility of it, then something very interesting is possible. When can be faced with considerable evidence that something is actual present already, and yet neglect to recognize it.

If we are merely resigned, we would instantly recognize evidence contrary to our prior dismissal of a particular method. “Hey- I am instantly clear that the thing I value is being fulfilled.. somehow!” There may be some skepticism about what method was involved , but skepticism is quite distinct from cynicism. A few examples demonstratng a particular principle, and skepticism can vanish.

However, a few examples in the face of cynicism or denial, and no notice of those thngs is likely. It should not be! It could not be! People may even resist evidence demonstrating a particular possibility, even attacking the demonstrators of that evidence, even interrupting a demonstration. That, clearly is not merely a curious confusion or a less curious resignation; that is active resistance, even violent opposition.

So, if we believe that something should not be, we can ignore lots of evidence- and even attack perceived threats to our intense rejection of a possibility. Of course, this is also quite natural. If we value some other possibility, then resisting a contrary possibility is natural. However, when our model is inapplicable to a partiocular situation, the fact htat we may wish it were applicable may be… functionally irrelevant.

Cynicism is just unpleasant truth.
Cynicism is just unpleasant truth. (Photo credit: KAZVorpal)

So, I recent wrote to someone this: “If you want to hide something right in front of the mainstream, tell them that it should not be. Once they believe that something should not be, thier denial will cause them to hide it from themselves, so it can be hidden in plain sight.”

So, confusion is the result of a relation between an observer’s model of how life should be and life itself. Confusion requires words- that is- a conceptual (verbal) model of how life should be. Newborns may be ignorant, but they are not actually confused per se. They are not resigned, nor cynical. Those require language!

So, life is never inherently confusing. When we believe in certain words rather than life itself, that is… inherently confusing (that is inherently confusion). No set of words will always provide us a fitting model to every single possible situation. Many people may be critical of that proposal, perhaps worshiping a particualr model of how life should be, however, a curious thing about such people is that while many of them may have learned the same odel of how life should be, there may be multiple models of how life should be throughout human cultures at a particular time, and if there is only one model that is actually exactly how everything should always be, then how come there are more than one of those models?

Absolutism is always vanity. It is always a reaction against the world, agasint life, and in favor of some verbal model, worshiped as the only verbal model that could ever be right. And, there are a bunch of different variations of such models, each of which various people may worship- or even the same person in sequence. “I used to think that this model was the only valid one, but I was wrong. Now, I know the only valid model. Oopos, no- here is a new one and it is the only one that could be valid- no other model could be valid, especially not the ones that I used to believe were the only ones that could ever be valid. I think I may just ferociously attack those in particular! (Yes, the ones I used to defend will violent opposition to all else.)”

All those are models of violent opposition. All those are models of denial. I could call that insanity, but I do not mean to imply that there is anything worng with it. Denial simply does not work in all cases. Obviously, if someone is worshiping a certian model as the only one that could possibly be valid, thaen there must be some value for them in that, or else they would not be worshiping a particualr model as the only one that could ever possibly be valid.

So, be wary of believing words. Use them, sure. Words are simple tools like a hammer or a calculator. Do not worship a hammer or a calculator. Use them- of course only when it fits a particular situation to do so!

We do not need to complain that calculators are useless as hammers or vice versa. Several verbal models may be functional in anmy particular circumstance. If you experience confusion and yet still value some possibility, find another model- even if you create it or ask for help fomr someone else.

So, words are tools for influencing human attention and behavior. They can be very effective. For instance, they can be used to hide what is obvious, clear, and… very very simple. We can use words to teach others what should not be, and thus hide those things from them, yes, perhaps even in plain sight.

So, now on to some particualr applications of clarifying confusion as it relates to economics. First, consider that an understanding of economics is one of the most valuable and useful things that one could possibly understand. Thus, maintaining a relative monopoly on an understanding of how economics works- and how economic change happens- is one of the most developed investments of the use of language. Confusing people about ecnomoics is extremely valuable to maintaining a concentration of economic power. Coinfusing other people about politics or health or relationships are all minor in practical vlaue compared to confusing people about economics. Of course, confusing people about any of those other things might be branches of a larger pattern of confusing them about all economic activity. Consider that politics are all about econmics, so is health, and so are relationships.

Let’s define economics really fast; ecnomics is knowing that one values a particular possibility and then taking action in accord with fulfilling that possibility. That’s it. If you want clean teeth and nice-smelling breath, but do not have that- or are not sure- and then you get a toothbrush and nice-smelling toothpaste and you brush your teeth, that is an economic choice. Economics is all about intentionally producing tangible results that are clearly valued. That’s it. Economics is not about anything else, just the process of intentionally producing any valued tangible result.

But there is a big variation between between tangible economics and accounting (quantified economics). We can easily count volumes of inventory- food, livestock, square foot of a building, etc…. However, the principle issue of economics is “what is the priority?”

In practical terms, the study of economics is all about priorities. Which valued possible result is the priority? In particular, which valued tangible result is the top priority… relative to all methods perceived to be avaialble?

English: The spotlight model of attention.

Image via Wikipedia

That is a question which can involve some accounting. We can list the sequence of few perceived possible tangible results, then prioritize them from most valued to least, and we might even sort them in terms of “this one is twice as valuable as that one, and three times as valuable as the rest.” However, the simplest form of economic choice is ultimately binary; “this or that, which one NOW?”

We sort for the single most valued tangible result, and then, at least according to the principles of economics, we consider methods for promoting the production of that result. The first question regarding which value to pursue is fundamentally an intuitive question. Different people can and do answer differently, and even at different times. Once someone has a refrigerator full of fresh food, then much more fresh may be undesirable- perhaps unless an extra refrigerator is avaialble. Or maybe, cleaning some older things out of the full refrigerator is suddenly more valuable than getting more food.

Now, all of those are question os which valued result is the priority. That is a question acknowledged by ecnomics, but econoics is not interested in answering that question. Economics may record how various people are answering that question, but economics is not a system for telling us what we should value as a priority. Economics may numerically predict fluctuating values, but economics is not a system for influencing intuition- or not inherently. (Influencing what people value is what things like advertising are for- as well as lanugage in general. Governing, by the way, is purely influencing.)

So, the primary focus of economics is not what should be valued, but what method should be used tfor promoting the production of what is valued as THe priority. That is where econoics can begin to get a bit complex.

How much time is estimated for a particular method? What resources are required and how available are they?

From Confusion Hill
Image via Wikipedia

These are the fundamental practical questions of economics. Evaluating (valuing) various methods is what economics is for.

In service of that value, economics involves financial accounting. Financial accounting just means accounting using a consistent standard of value relative to some set of alternatives. This standard could be a pound of silver or a gallon of water or a curency contract issued by a bank or government (as in a dollar or a British pound sterling, named after a pound of sterling silver).

The value of the unit of measurement is relative to a particular momentary assesment of various methods of promoting some valuaed tangible result. Again, a gallon of water may be considered very valuable when one has only one, relative to when one has dozens easily available.

Currency is actually not magical, or not in its simplest utility. Currency is created by governments for their own purposes. Those operating governments use curencies to evaluate methods of producing a tangible result they value. If a certain hammer is worth $800 or $8 to those people, so be it. That is what it is worth to them- or at least that is what they may publicize as a diversion to distract people who may be rather naive… from the simplest realities of their operating of the business of governing, that is, influencing the behavior of other people.

Government is influence. Government is not charity. That is another subject, but the idea that government is not influence, but chairty, is actually rather odd. (In fact, charity may also be influence. What isn’t?)

Now, clear on the basic function of currency- to objectively evaluate various methods for producing a particular tangible result that is subjectively declared to be a priority, let’s go back to a recent email of mine. (Only now do I start referring to actual current events in economics.)

“So, if folks do not understand what currency is- and how it is back by the organized violence of courts and armies- then all the technical analysis of the statisticians may be irrelevant. Again, some people miss the simplest things and get caught up in complexity, then say it is all confusing. Deflation is extremely simple.

Deflation is when the difference is suddenly clear between cash and a debt contract payable in cash (an “account receivable”). The debts (A/R) are severely discounted in terms of purchasing power and the cash, which has been severely discounted, is recognized as being worth way more than previously accounted. It’s all in the accounting.

People may not get the simplicity of the legal system- which is the core of currency. They may not get the simplicity of accounting, in which there is cash accounting of actual items in stock as well as accrual accounting of expected or promised or projected future circumstances- like a mortgage holder expecting to be paid on time simply because there is a contract in which another party has agreed to do that. The agreement that some future possibility is legally enforceable is… just an agreement made of words (the kind with no inherent meaning, no inherent substance).

Then, understanding the sheer simplicity of all, there is the statistics or “technical analysis” of trends and waveforms and sentiment

sodalite (cross polarised)
sodalite (cross polarised) (Photo credit: Johan J.Ingles-Le Nobel)

extremes and so on. (“Sentiment extremes,” here, refers to the principle that when the vast majority of people value something already, there is little room for a huge surge of people to increase their valuation of that thing- while when the huge majority of people discount a certain thing, there is a lot of room for people to increase their valuation of that thing.)

So, the economic principle of sentiment extremes is very simple- and each distinction by itseld is very simple. However, skipping from 3rd grade math to 8th grade math just may not work well. People may say that the 8th grade math is confusing. For them it is confusing, especially if they were told that math for grades 4 through 7 not only does not exist, but should not.

Economics is simple. Most people, however, are proud, by which I mean idiotically in denial of the shame of admitting that they do not know something, thus doing anythig except asking for help. It can happen to any of us.

I’m going to conclude here. Note that in various other places, I detail the relevance of what deflation is and why prices of real estate, stocks, and commodities have moved at unprecedented rates in recent years, and what is coming next. Note that I forecast all of the major moves in all of the major markets, and I ma not alone. Again, economics is quite simple- even if many people violently oppose that possibility. Of course, using a model that does not fit current circumstances… can be rather confusing. 😉

published on Nov, 28, 2009

Related articles

the symbolic language of God’s way of heavenly peace

March 1, 2012
Orthodox Church of Holy Spirit in Medzilaborce...

Orthodox Church of Holy Spirit in Medzilaborce, Slovakia Polski: Cerkiew Świętego Ducha w Medzilaborce, Słowacja Slovenčina: Pravoslávny chrám Svätého Ducha v Medzilaborcach (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Now, to the familiar way of thinking and speaking and living, this message may seem to be foolishness, at least at first. In contrast, to the emerging way of thinking and speaking and living, the familiar way may be revealed to be not so wise as it once may have seemed.

Effects are caused. Every effect is also a factor in causing future effects. For each effect, many other earlier effects precede it as the conditions that allow for the next effect.

So, the way that all effects are caused may be called “the way life works” or “the way of being effective.” The way of being effective is not caused by anything. The way of being effective is not dependent on any conditions or on the presence or absence of any conditions. The way of being effective is simply how life works or how organization organizes.

This Way cannot be comprehensively explained or measured. The Way is already functioning in all processes of measuring and explaining, as well as everything else. The Way can be noticed directly, but it cannot be understood. The Way also produces all understanding and all noticing.

Some linguistic symbols for the Way are Tao or Logos or Word or the Will of God or simply God or Divinity or The Almighty or The Void. The Way is the cause of all effects. The way is the source of all conditions.

Every word evidences the Way. Every word is formed by the Way. There is nothing that does not express the Way.

Every language evidences the Way. Every language is formed by the Way. There is nothing that does not reveal the Way.

The Way cannot be blocked. The Way cannot be assisted or resisted. The way is always operating and organizing and forming and causing and creating.

However, the Way can be noticed. The Way can be recognized. The Way can be acknowledged. The Way can be honored.

How do such effects arise? The Way produces them just as it produces anything else.

Grace is the single cause of all conditions, all effects, and all instrumental causes. There is nothing which is not the instrument of Grace.

The Way forms you. The Way compels you to focus on the Way. Whatever the Way may have compelled of you in the past, the Way has only been preparing you for your current condition.

Whatever you may have been focusing on previously, the Way has caused. Now, the Way is continuing to redirect your attention however the Way commands.

Focusing on symptoms may relax and cease. Focusing on identifying causes and effects may relax and cease. Focusing on the forms created by the Way may relax and cease as the Way itself focuses attention on the eternal presence of attention.

You are innocent of all concerns. All concerns and all other conditions are formed by the Way.

You are not a temporary condition. You are not a temporary form. You are not a temporary effect. You are the eternal attention of the Way.

Experience is compelled into being by your attention and focus. Notice your own attention and let the effects of your attention come and go. If you notice your own attention energizing effects, isolating effects, labeling effects, resisting effects, or pursuing effects, then notice those reflexive reactions as additional, new effects.

If you identify with effects, notice what happens next. If you identify against effects, notice your own attention. If you take life personally, notice that happening.

If you resist the effects of your attention, notice that. If you resent the effects of your attention, notice that. If you envy, notice that. If you blame, notice that. If you compete, notice that. If you villify, notice that. If you worship any effect, notice your innocent idolatry and return your attention to the Way.

Sin is an interpretation, a labeling, an identifying. Notice as the Way forms all sinning, all repenting, and all redeeming.

Attention to the Way is the most important creation of the Way. All other concerns are secondary. All other concerns will be fulfilled through attention to the Way. Focus first on noticing the supremacy of the Way. Seek first the Reign of God within, the Heavenly Kingdom of innocence, gratitude, curiosity, and the peace that surpasses all understanding. Be still and know the Way that is like the vine of originating cause… from which arises all branches of temporary effects and conditions.

If you notice yourself disturbing yourself with entanglements or agonizing about what to do and what not to do or cause and effect or good and evil or right and wrong or reward and punishment, notice your attention relaxing from the tree of dualistic knowledge, divisiveness, argument, and animosity. Notice that agonizing is the effect of a cause, and that in the absence of that cause, agonizing exhausts itself and dissolves, revealing peace.

There is no remedy for agonizing. There is agonizing, then noticing agonizing, then the dissolving of agonizing, and then the noticing of attention itself.

I am the Way. Notice my presence. Do as I do. Surrender to my cause. Recognize the Will of God as the source of all temporary individual concerns, the source of all temporary effects, the source of all conditions.

God does not come to judge or condemn anything or anyone. God blesses all of the effects of God, all of the creations of God, and relieves all temporary agonizing about what should be, who is to blame, or what should be done. God reveals all sin to be an innocent misinterpretation. God redeems what previously may have been considered agonizing to now be revealed as the the cultivating of attention to God, the refining of attention to the source, the redirecting of attention to attention itself.

All creations are formed by the Holy Spirit, of the Holy Spirit, and for the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit fills you.

The Holy Spirit depicted as a dove, surrounded...

The Holy Spirit depicted as a dove, surrounded by angels, by Giaquinto, 1750s. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Notice any relying on other people or any relying on one’s own mind. Repent of these breakdowns in faith and recognize the cause of all effects including the actions of other people and even of one’s one mind, one’s own thoughts, one’s own words, experience, body, and life.

There is only one sin: idolatry- though it may have many forms and names. There is only one remedy: repenting.

Repenting does not arise from one’s own merit. Repenting arises by Grace alone.

The personality cannot keep it’s personal pride or glory by sneaking in to the kingdom of heavenly peace, or by earning access, or by figuring out how to enter. Eternal hell burns away the personality, converting that fuel into a new form, and through the temporary purgatory of humbly worshipping God even in the midst of what may seem to be unfair persecutions, Grace resurrects the one and only God, who rests on the inner throne of the Sovereign Lord.

Now, to the familiar way of thinking and speaking and living, this message may seem to be foolishness, at least at first. Again, to the emerging way of thinking and speaking and living, the familiar way may be revealed to be not so wise as it once may have seemed.

There are many ways to misinterpret and misapply this message, and those ways bear no fruit and are in vain, yet still provide lessons in distinguishing what does work. There is only one way to already recognize heaven now.

This is good news. If it were not good news, it would not produce the unconditional peace of God.

Remember what the most famous prophets have been communicating, for it is a single message with a single spirit and single heart, though in a variety of languages and with many sayings pointing to a single core: “Be pure just as God is pure.” The variety of sayings clarify the message, extending it to a variety of distinctions, such as this: “it is not what you put in your mouth that defiles and condemns you, but what comes out of your mouth.”

Could it be that to curse God is to curse yourself? How would you curse yourself?

Cursing God’s creations is to curse yourself. So, refrain from condemning. Refrain even from condemning any instance of condemning. Instead, withdraw from what you find troubling or disturbing. If, out of spontaneous compassion, you firmly rebuke someone, then the effect will be miraculous. If the effect is not miraculous, consider that spontaneous compassion was not present.

Holy Spirit
Holy Spirit (Photo credit: Barking Tigs)

Respect God and God blesses you, for receptivity to God’s blessings could be your only concern, your only focus, your only responsibility. How would you respect God? Respecting God’s creations as your own creations- even as branches arising from your own root- is to respect God.

There is no other cause but the almighty. Respect the almighty with all of your attention. Respecting the almighty, respect all the creations of the almighty, including your own circumstances and even your own attention.

Everything you experience, including who you may think you are or say you are, is the fulfillment of God’s Will. Every branch on the vine of God is a branch on the vine of God.

There is no other vine but the vine of God. There is no other branch but a branch of God.

The seed determines the fruit. The fruit is always faithful to the qualities of the seed. Focus on your own emergence diligently.

written 2/17/2011

republished as a post on 3/1/2012

%d bloggers like this: