Posts Tagged ‘hysteria’

What is the best way to shame others for shaming others the wrong way?

June 6, 2015

JK wrote: “Unfortunately we live in a world where profits come before integrity….”

  • J R Fibonacci Hunn “Integrity” is just a PR spin to promote profits / competitive advantage. The masses are programmed to obsess over integrity and experience a type of anxiety called guilt. Deception is central to governments and many big businesses.
    Like · Reply · 1 · 16 hrs · Edited
    • Jaguar Kukulcan Somehow the masses are blind to the staggering lack of integrity in their governments and big business. There is none so blind as s/he he will not see eh . . .
      Like · 1 · 14 hrs

    • J R Fibonacci Hunn Schools and media program the masses to presume that integrity is important to governments (and churches etc). The indoctrination can be quite misleading. Further, it is rare for someone to ask exactly how / when is integrity important.In the U.S., a

      military officer named Oliver north is famous for lying to the government, then getting convicted in a criminal court, and then getting pardoned by the U.S. President. Governments regulate crime. They do not prevent it and they could not if they tried. Governments define crime (and generally the same activities that governments perform would be punished as criminal if performed by private citizens… Well, unless you are close friends with the president…).

      Like · 1 · 13 hrs · Edited

    • Jaguar Kukulcan Agreed! AND . . . who amongst us was taught at home to have real integrity? Even the best parents were lying to their kids at times. And encouraged their kids to lie too even in small ways. Who wants their kid to respond to a neighbours question “how are you?” with “I’m pissed off that I’ve got a cold and I’m coughing up great gobs of gunk” hahaha We say “I’m fine thanks, how are you?” Mundane example but points to the way we legitimise the lies we tell to ourselves and others . . .
    • J R Fibonacci Hunn Wait… Are you saying that Santa Claus did not bring me those presents and my parents intentionally deceived me about it?
      Like · 1 · 1 hr
    • J R Fibonacci Hunn With language, there are lies, which means intentionally deceiving. The bigger issues may be the things that my parents actually believed and told me were true, but my parents were wrong about even though totally sincere.
      Like · 1 · 1 hr · Edited

    • J R Fibonacci Hunn Some people condemn lying. Some people punish it with perjury laws.In other cases, honesty is punished. For instance, some military officers are fired (or worse) for mentioning details that the social system prefers to be kept secret.

      Like · 1 · 1 hr

    • J R Fibonacci Hunn Lying is legitimate. Punishing lying (shaming it or criminalizing it) is also legitimate. Punishing honesty is also legitimate.The one who thinks that legitimacy is anything more than a perception (usually involving the approval of a particular social institution) may be “lying to themselves.” Those who have been trained to worship delusions hysterically can be categorized as “pretty much everyone.”

    • hahaha shocking isn’t it (about Santa)

      It’s a big subject for sure! And I agree with you!

      I love this quote by Don Miguel Ruiz:
      “I was a perfect little child. I was innocent, and I ate the lie that I am not what I should be. I believed that I would have to work hard to become what I should be. This is how I learned to create my story, and because I had faith in the story, the story became truth for me. And the story, even if it is full of lies, is perfect. It is wonderful and beautiful. The story is not right or wrong or good or bad – it’s just a story, that’s all. But with awareness, we can change the story. Step by step, we can return to the truth.”
    • J R Fibonacci Hunn Only in language are there such concepts as perfection and imperfection. If someone is interested in truth, perhaps they will relax the common hysteria about language.Before language, there was nothing but truth. To look to language as the pathway to truth is delusional.

    • J R Fibonacci Hunn Many delusions are programmed socially. Hysteria and paranoia and social anxiety are the foundations of modern civilized society. Social anxiety is instrumental to an orderly society. People must be interested in learning the rules of society and then be anxious about following those rules, right? (Or about keeping any violations of the rules discrete.)“What should be is more important than what is” is a fundamental hysteria. What should be is socially programmed using the language of hysteria.

      How society should be is a hysterical idea. Notice the hysteria with which people use that kind of statement.

      “How I should be” is the foundation of shame. In hysteria, I can relate to others as if my expectations are holy and as if some aspects of their experience could be an insult to me (a threat to the surfacing of my inner hysteria and paranoia), so I resent and condemn and gather with like-minded people to complain about all the humans who I find the most insulting (threatening).

    • J R Fibonacci Hunn Is it good for a parent to intentionally discipline their child by shaming them? It is Almost inevitable. Embarrassment is a normal experience. To intentionally embarrass someone is also very common.My commentary is that to intentionally shame is mu

      ch better than to do it without knowing one is doing it. To shame others can be effective. It is “nothing to be ashamed of.”

      However, what could be more shameful in a religion of hysteria but to intentionally promote hysteria and shame and paranoia in another? Good thing that the Santa Claus thing does not promote paranoia because promoting paranoia could never be effective at influencing the behavior of children (or adults), right?

      why are we told “what should not be?” To hide certain parts of reality from us. We are programmed to experience shame and outrage whenever we notice something that we are told should not be. Eventually, that leads to us “going blind” to many of the basic realities of how our society works (for we have been told how society should work, which also is an indoctrination method for distracting us from reality with slogans to worship). I got an A in my government class because I memorized all the political slogans in the textbook and repeated them back on the test. I have been rewarded for copying the government-approved political slogan and then repeating it and calling it “the truth” on a true or false test.

      Of course, questioning the holy truth as taught in the sacred school of our religion is a shameful thing to do and will result in getting detention or getting expelled. Our empire is the most holy because it condemns imperialism as something that should not be.

  • Doc Murdoch we need a revolution….
    Like · Reply · 27 mins 

  • J R Fibonacci Hunn Ah, yes, Doc reminds me of the hysterical slogan of the revolucion eternale party from Mexico. No matter how life is, we must hysterically relate to it as something that we must change so as to save our children from reality. Now we just have to agonize and exhaust ourselves over figuring out exactly which way to rebel, since obviously most of the people who promote a revolution are saying hysterical things about what kind of revolution we need. It sure is a good thing that Our group of holy snobs is nothing like those naive, self-righteous herds.

    Save the children from Santa Claus! Deception is shameful! Hysteria must be prevented by panicking over which form of hysteria is the least hysterical!

  • J R Fibonacci Hunn Those who are ashamed of an empire will insist passionately on their favorite reform campaign to make the empire less imperialistic. Who programmed them to be ashamed of certain details of imperialism?  ;)


Paradise: what does that mean to you?

April 26, 2015

What would paradise be like? What words come to mind? How would you describe the experience that is most attractive to you… even inspiring?

We might think of momentary satisfaction. We have already experienced moments of distinct satisfaction, such as joy, pleasure, ecstasy, or euphoria.

However, the word paradise is not just about occasionally attaining a temporary high. We already know what it is like to experience temporary highs. Is there anything even more attractive than another occasional high?

We also may experience attraction to the idea of lasting relief from certain terrifying realities. If you have experienced terror, then you can understand the appeal of the idea of a permanent relief from terror.

Maybe we have been terrified of poverty or war, so we got intrigued by apolitical campaign about achieving global peace or even support a political war on poverty in the hopes of getting eternal prosperity. However, after thousands of years of peace-keeping armies and taxes to combat poverty, the peace-keeping armies keep doing violence and people who are struggling to survive keep getting targeted by cops and tax collectors and bomber pilots.

We can distract ourselves from the reality that there are systems that exist to conduct large-scale operations of violence among groups of humans, but we still know the reality. Somewhere, there is someone who is terrified of a particular government.  Maybe we are thankful that those people are terrified of our own government, but the reality of terror is still obvious. We still know that somewhere there is someone worried about how they are going to keep the tax collection court from sending armed soldiers to evict them and take over their property in the name of some distant government treasury.

Governments are operations of terror. In order to terrify other people in to chronic anxiety, governments repeatedly publicize certain terrifying aspects of their operations, like when they drop atomic bombs on some civilians and confine other civilians behind barbed wire fences and guard towers in “correctional” prisons and ethnic minority reservations.

While some of us may think of governments as possible saviors that offer a final solution to terrifying realities, other people think of governments as just another terrifying reality, similar to earthquakes and tornadoes. Some people want a government that will free them from anxiety. Others want freedom from anxiety about a particular government.

However what all of those people have in common is that they all experience anxiety. In fact, many of them anxiously await a government that will free them from anxiety about some of other form of government (some policy or politician or party). They donate money and time to promoting a government-provided salvation to government-related anxieties.

However, before there were any governments, there was still anxiety. Further,even if all governments suddenly ceased to function, that would not end anxiety. What is the real source of anxiety… much more ancient than the existence of organized government? What is it that really motivates people tobe interested in conceiving of a future paradise? From what reality do we really seek relief?

There is another obvious detail that we can ignore but we cannot deny, which is that we throughout our lives are repeatedly exposed to the reality of death. Plants live and die. We are exposed to death in stories and news reports. Eventually,people we know die. We pass by hospitals and mortuaries and even graveyards that are filled with human corpses. Over and over, we are reminded of the reality of death.

Many people are so anxious about their own death that they do ignore the reality of it, distracting themselves from any idea of their own death. Maybe they will pre-occupy themselves with condemning a particular government

However, what if you imagined complete freedom from any anxiety about dying?What if everything about dying was something that you could accept without any anxiety? If we are terrified of anxiety, then we naturally would reflexively attempt to avoid any topic that terrifies us.

The process of dying can involve pain. What if you were totally free of any anxiety about pain? In fact, what if the neurological production of a pain sensation is an expression of pre-existing anxiety? What is pain except a signal of anxiety about a wound? The wound may not be painful by itself… but once someone sees the wound, suddenly they may experience pain. Pain is a signal generated by the brain.

What exactly does pain signal? Pain signals anxiety. That is not “a mistake.”That is the neurological purpose of pain signals.

So, back to the specific issue of anxiety about death, some governing systems publicize stories about a heavenly after-life that not everyone will get to access. It is a reward for those who are most obedient to a particular set of values publicized by that system.

For instance, when Vikings soldiers were preparing to go to war, the high priests would indoctrinate them with stories of an eternal after-life. Those valiant heroes who boldly charge in to combat and draw first blood from the enemy would be selected after their death by sexy virgin angels called Valkyries who would take them to an eternal after-life of pleasure.

These stories were very good for morale. Some groups of soldiers were told these stories in their training and other groups of soldiers were not told these stories. The young soldiers who were first thoroughly traumatized in military training camps and then instructed with these stories were recognized by the high priests to be more effective as infantry. So, the stories became popular.

Young boys long before being drafted in to the armies were told these stories of how to get in to heaven. Further, they were also told stories of eternal torture in hell for those who did not conform to the behaviors indicated to them by Santa Claus.

Some might ask if these stories were in any way deceptive? Did some of the military officers doubt the accuracy of the stories, yet still tell those stories?

Others might say that military officers should not use deception or indoctrination. However, the reality is that deception and indoctrination exist.

In fact, only people who have been thoroughly indoctrinated would ever say “militaryofficers should never use deception.” If people have been traumatized thoroughly and then conditioned to reflexively condemn deception as “always wrong,”then they are simply displaying their obedience to the indoctrinated dogmas when they publicize their condemnations.

Which aspects of reality do birds condemn? Do birds condemn certain other birds for parroting the sounds of a mockingbird? Do birds say “their deception gives them an advantage in their effectiveness as hunters and if we refuse to use a particular method because of chronic tension about being punished if we use it,then the advantages of that method are unfair. We protest the fact that those other birds use methods that are more effective than ours! Our methods should be more effective. Isn’t there a politician who will at least promise us apolitical solution that can make our method more effective (or make the method that we refuse to use less effective)?”

What is the best way for governments to conduct their operations of terror? Different people will have different opinions about the issue. Generally speaking, people are often happy to ignore any operations of terror that benefit them, such as tax systems that provide free child care for their children through public schooling. If the vast majority of the income from the tax systems is used for other purposes besides providing free childcare, that is simply not relevant to most people.

As long as people perceive (accurately or not) that they are benefiting from an operation of organized terror, they tend not to condemn it. However, once people begin to feel threatened, there is a predictable coping mechanism which can be observed in thousands of cases.

Over and over, threatened people begin to criticize some government for bullying and intimidation. They condemn a particular foreign government. They condemn a particular party or individual. They condemn isolated cases of corruption.

Why? Condemning isolated cases of injustice is a coping mechanism to distract them from the simplicity of the nature of all governing systems. Governments are violent and terrifying. They systematically redistribute access to resources inequitably, benefiting certain special interest groups at the expense of certain groups of human resources (such as in colonized territories that have been recently liberated).

“We need a more honest government that is less deceptive. We also need a more honest currency system that is less biased.”

However, what is the purpose of using violence to create a currency system except for the systematic inequitable redistribution of resources? Of course some army will form a legal system and then the legal system will invent some debts owed to the legal system by the human resources. This system of extortion can be monopolized in a particular geographic area and called “legitimate taxation.”

The loyalists paint little shapes on ink on to signs and then parade down the street chanting that “We need political reforms to permanently bring us a better reality that fits with the presumptions that we were programmed to worship in free public training schools. We were repeatedly rewarded with social validation in school for repeating the slogans and values of the indoctrination system. Everyone should congratulate us on our loyalty and patriotism and then join us in our heroic parade. By the way, why are there so many hysterical people who oppose our favorite reforms and instead promote some other reforms as if those reforms were their only relief from hysteria about the eternal tortures that they were trained are waiting them for their sinful nature? How can those people be so naïve and so hysterical and so antagonistic toward the ideals that everyone that I like worships religiously?”

Many people are easily insulted, which means easily reminded of shames and terrors that they pretend not to have. Some people are virtually impossible to privately insult. If there is no credible sense of tangible injury or detriment to their interests, then the opinions of strangers may be of no special concern to them.

So, what is paradise? Paradise involves a harmony between natural instincts  conditioning.

There can be respect for social conditioning and social ideals, yet also a respect for all natural instincts (rather than the  condemnations programmed through social conditioning). In other words, there can be self-respect and grace… in contrast to the typical chronic physical tensions to totally avoid the display of any emotions labeled “negative” or “sinful.”

What are the typical instincts of all living creatures (even plants)? Basic instincts include the instinct for survival, for reproduction, and for adaptive superiority. Many organisms in a species may survive to sexual maturity and successfully reproduce. However, some organisms will thrive more than others.In the case of animals, some bloodlines will falter and disappear while others will expand.

Some groups of humans may excel in the use of language and even organize systems for military cooperation. They may establish systems for cultivating obedient soldiers, for developing superior military technology and protocols,and so on. Empires may form.

Within these empires, certain individuals and families may experience notably above average benefits. They may lobby for governments to benefit their economic interests. They may lobby for governments to burden their competitors with complex tax laws, prohibitive licensure requirements, or even criminal penalties to promote monopolies for their most lucrative operations.

What if paradise is not only for after the death of a physical body? Paradise could be a state of respect for one’s own patterns of activity. If I am most experienced with certain kinds of social interactions(certain social dynamics), that could be useful to accurately assess as I go about my life of recognizing my instinctual interests and promoting them.

If I lack certain skills that I may value and that other people may have, that may be useful to know. Maybe I form a lasting partnership with one or more of them. Or, maybe I form a temporary alliance (like when I pay someone else to fly an airplane to a destination where I would like to go… or where I would like an item or piece of mail to be transported).

For someone who is already in paradise, do they need to involve themselves in political reform movements to bring a particular government closer toward certain ideological slogans? They might choose to invest their time in that way, but a pre-occupation with pretending not to have any anxiety can be exhausting to the point of blindness. If I am not terrified of anxiety, then I do not have to agonize over how to prevent it. If I simply accept that anxiety and stress and chronic tension are realities that some people may experience, I can respect all experiences.

What is the best way for a propagandist in a military empire to create their systems of indoctrination and public relations? How can the attention of the masses be reliably governed/ programmed? How can their interpretations and perceptions be reliably governed/programmed? How can their behavioral responses to their programmed perceptions be best governed? What is the best way for an empire to promote obedient sacrifice by the human resources?

Paradise could include relief from habits of programmed guilt (which is the behavior of linguistic self-condemnation in an internalized dialogue about distress and safety, as in an “attack” by anxious panics of hysterical idealism, like what a Freudian psychiatrist might call a massive “super-ego” of moralizing, perfectionist, crippling, paralyzing self-criticism,). The most lasting relief could involve clarity about how such habits have been systematically programmed in to the masses of all modern cultures.

Personal economic stability (“thriving”) could contribute to a relaxing of internalized tensions and chronic pretenses. Pretenses can involve tension.Lasting release of chronic tension can involve a dissolving of unexamined habits of social pretense (such as displayed self-condemnation to present an absence of anxiety by distracting from one’s own hysteria through condemning the hysteria of others).
What is the best way to promote lasting personal economic stability? Condemning the nature of a monetary system tends to correspond with a naïve idealism about“not needing money to thrive.”

Do you need money to survive? Relative to breathing, money is not absolutely required. However, to condemn others for valuing money (and what money can buy)… could be a hysterical loyalty to programmed ideals that serve to emotionally cripple the masses of human resources in regard to how they relate to money and wealth within an empire.

On the other hand, any popular obsession with money as the “ticket to paradise”certainly might be targeted with some skepticism. Hoarding money does not itself produce introspective clarity. However, a steady flow of sufficient passive income might contribute to a relaxing of chronic pretenses and a release of habitual momentums of hysterical self-attack panics.

One can respect the religions of guilt and their mass-marketed curses. One can respect the innovative witchcraft with which the masses are programmed to be paranoid and hysterical about being possessed by demonic entities such as stage3 cancer of the tumor, type 8 hyperglycemic diabetes, possession of the abdominal intestines by bad cholesterol bacteria, uneasy anxiety stressed dis-ease syndrome disorder, delusional naivete, viral hypertension, imaginary hyperventilation, cardiopathic arthritis of the tongue, post-natal hypothyroidism, and of course incurable hypochondria.

One can respect that the masses reliably do worship those demons. That is what they are trained to do through indoctrination systems that disproportionately benefit the medical industry (which is the purpose of all advertising and marketing).

The indoctrination can be very effective. The worship of the selected demons can be wildly popular.

So, perhaps I do not need to bring everyone to paradise for me to experience paradise.That idea could be just part of another religion of crippling guilt.

By the way, paradise is a word that has the same historical roots as the word “park”and the word “garden.” When we talk about the paradise of Eden, the word paradise refers to an area isolated by a boundary, especially a wall. The word paradise,in its ancient form, can be used interchangeably with garden or park or even sanctuary(such as a wildlife sanctuary or a hunting reserve belonging to a local king or warlord).

Do you value lasting relief from the programmed habits of hysterical inattentiveness to language? If so, I know a politician that promises eternal salvation from that terrifying problem for just a modest increase in your tax rate. However,do not be deceived by the hypnotic bait of that political party, for it is the party that has a monopoly on dishonesty.

The only way for you to enter paradise is to participate in a proper ritualc elebrating your Eternal Sovereignty (and your eventual conditional independence from the influence of any empire or organized religion). Fortunately, I was personally authorized to perform that ritual by the God of the Latter-Day Saint Nicolaus of the Virginal Valkyries. Of course, your participation is entirely voluntary and, if you are interested to the point of an agonizing social anxiety, then let me know immediately and we will schedule your very own ritual (in exchange for a small donation in the form of certain evil currencies of certain evil governments). Furthermore, it is my oath-sworn duty to warn you that any failure on your part to submit to the ritual celebration of your Eternal Sovereignty will be used against you in a court of final judgment and damnation, subjecting you to eternal tortures involving repeated verbal condemnation by 666 very self-righteous birds.

Celebrating fear (and delusional hysterias about fear)

February 17, 2015

Isn’t hysterical fear the only thing that would ever drive people to want to “eliminate fear from their lives?”

Fear is what keeps you in your lane while driving. Stress hormones are designed for a wonderful purpose: to suddenly shift your focus to something that is potentially a very urgent priority in that moment.

In a culture of extreme hysteria, a strange thing can happen which is that people get so ashamed about ever displaying fear that they condemn it. They may say they are condemning the “foolishness of fear itself” but they are really condemning the display of fear.

Why do they react with such aloof paranoia if someone- maybe even a dog or a child- displays caution or fear? Because they are investing a lot of energy in to repressing their own latent anxiety and if someone else displays fear around them, that can trigger a cracking open of their dam to hide fear. They may panic.

So, maybe they join a Unity Church (I did) as they isolate themselves from “negative people” who are “too afraid.” Plus, that coping mechanism can actually benefit them to get to the point of less stress and eventually calming down from the various mainstream hysterias popular in a culture (even subtle, conceptual things like “a fear of inequality” or “a fear of injustice”).

As for the statement by New Age Guru Louise Hay about relaxing, I agree that people who have been experiencing a lot of tension can benefit from things like “breathing peacefully” (in contrast to the normal breathing rate of most people which is typically TWICE as much as ideal). However, saying “I am safe and secure” does not buckle your seatbelt or lock your door.

When people’s self-interest has been effectively confounded by social conditioning, then they “have no clear direction.” In that case, fear does not help move them toward a goal because they have no beacon.

Once the target is clear (like “I want to travel to a higher elevation immediately”), then when the flood comes, fear creates action. People who do not fear tsunamis or hurricanes because they chant “I am safe and secure” are delusional. Delusional disassociation is, once again, an amazing coping mechanism that works very well in some situations, but not all.

Why will you probably refill your gas tank sometime in the future? It might be because you are afraid of running out of gas.

a toddler’s rage (and the fear beneath it)

February 8, 2015

Toddlers are not known for being precise about language. Let’s make up some insightful captions for these pictures, only using the vocabulary of an adult:

“WHAT? How I feel about [this issue] is the only way I can respect, plus I am looking for any excuse to blast my rage at anyone who dares to offer a different view. You will do! Also, anything but enthusiastic agreement with me is VICTIMIZING me. And yes of course I am testing you. I need to know whether you will back off if I indirectly direct you to back off, and obviously THAT is why I am shouting at you to interrupt your inattentiveness. Didn’t they teach you about this in parenting school? You should get a REFUND!”

“I crave validation because… because I am terrified of learning. Learning can include a stage of uncertainty or disorientation. WHAT? I ain’t got no time for that. Please just tell me I’m RIGHT! I am not scared or anything else that people should not be… obviously (!), but I am just really FRUSTRATED. What I really need is for SOMEONE to just put a band-aid on the cracking dam of my emotions, OKAY!?!? Do you agree with me, yes or no? (In case this was not clear yet, the correct answer is YES.)”

“Can’t you wait one cotton-picking minute for once? What the HECK are you even talking about? Are you trying to change the subject to distract me? I mean, what do you mean that I should fight for YOUR ideals? Why should I have unconditional love for EVERYONE? And all the time? Really? REALLY?!?! That is INSANE! You have been reading your holy manual for hysteria again, haven’t you? I think that the version you have could use a little bit better editing or translation or something. Look, here is the bottom line. I told you three bleeping times that she is driving me nuts. I can’t even stand to be around her. If you think that I should ‘fight for her’ more, maybe you have not noticed that obviously this relationship is currently not right for me. Is that CLEAR? Gosh… sometimes I am embarrassed to be related to you people….”

“Seriously?!?! You need to stop being like that! Don’t you remember that I have told you FOUR times that toddlers should not feel rage? Toddlers should not crave validation! I finally see the problem here, which is that you have FEELINGS.”

“Oh, so now I am the one who has strong feelings that I should not have? You are actually blaming me… wow. Just wow. This is getting hilarious. You remind me of a cartoon that I saw last Saturday morning called PROFESSIONAL WRESTLING.”

“Listen up, Mean Gene. This is my hand. Also, I am the hulkster. Hear me roar! Hulkamania is coming to get you, baby. YES! Also, I am the hulkster.”

“You did not just do that! You can’t compare me to that clown. In case you don’t remember, you called me an over-dramatic drama queen about two years ago. Well… for your information, I am NOT the drama queen here. WOOOO!”

“OOOO, what cha gonna do about it? Huh? What? I’ll tell you what: NOTHING! Why? Because I am the new Mid-Atlantic champion of a totally rigged meritocracy. Yes, RIGGED! I admit it. Of course that is a very shocking thing in our society because, as I was discussing with Santa Claus last Christmas, things should not be like that and this kind of deception and unfairness is very rare. But what was I saying before you interrupted me? Oh yeah, I want you to know, Mean Gene, that you are mean. People should not be like that. You should not be like that. Your so-called name sucks. Yes, it is memorable because it rhymes, sure, but it sucks so much that it reminds me of a vacuum cleaner. In fact, it sucks so much that it reminds me of this one lady who works downtown. Her name is BJ. Not the one from the TV show ‘BJ and the Bear,’ though. I am talking about the other BJ, you know, she does this thing with her lips like… um, nevermind. By the way, do you like coke? I’m just asking because my supplies are kind of low. No, I don’t mean the beverage. I mean the other kind of coke. STOP. STOP! Can you just stop thinking about whatever you are thinking and just focus on what is important to me for ONCE? THANK YOU! Okay, so this is a simple question for you. Can you get me some cocaine right NOW, yes or no?”

“Nature boy? Is that really you? You’re totally my favorite. You have like five different championships that you have ‘won’ in your fake sport. You are the real deal, unlike that one totally fake cartoon in which people are just reading scripts and getting paid to act out roles.”

“Huh, so that really WAS a cartoon once?!?! Imagine that! Anyway, as I was saying, I like two things: a mouse with no shirt and, as you already know, boobies.”

“Boobies? Really? Are you still using that word? Grow UP, dude! Watch me if you want to learn from a pro. You see how those cookies are way back on the counter where I can’t reach? Check this out. I need you to understand this so you don’t mess things up for me in the future. Okay, so when I saw what your sister was wearing today, I realized that what I needed was a plan. First, I got a stool and put the cookies way back there when no one was looking. Then I got in to position and finally, I waited until when your sister was the tallest person around, then I whined about how I could not reach the cookies. Once I had her attention, I simply asked your sister if she would get each of us a cookie. Simple, right? She would have to reach way back there and stretch, right? And it worked like MAGIC. By the way, you cannot tell ANYONE about this or else, um, or I will rip the legs off of your favorite doll, OKAY? Good, because this is VERY important! So anyway, it was basically the most awesome three seconds of my entire life EVER!”

The greatest taboo: calm alertness

February 8, 2015

Is there any greater taboo than simply to relax profoundly? The common people are kept in a state of chronic stress- even subdued terror. This is a primary goal of many cultures. A major source of terror is the perceived threat of a pending social rejection of an individual. Who is willing to relax their worship of a culture’s favorite slogans (even at the risk of thinning out their social network)?

If someone says “people should all be a certain way,” why is that? Why should people be a few particular ways and not certain other ways? If millions of people are all programmed to chant a slogan that “people should not be a certain way,” why all of the attention to creating systems of institutional indoctrination, such as schools and churches and media?

Certain patterns of behavior are encouraged as favoring the interests of the rulers. Other patterns are discouraged for being directly contrary to the interests of the rulers (or, if not a threat, then at least a potential distraction).

Sexuality is an extremely powerful instinct. If the masses can be trained to repress actual sexual behavior while there is a constant stimulation of sexual energies (of sexuality), can the common people be kept emotionally crippled?

Consider the intense emotions of contempt that can be stirred if the mass media repeats that a particular group or individual has simply been accused of particular kinds of sexual activity that the common people think of as disgusting, revolting, or disturbing. Consider also that when “insiders” of mainstream institutions have been accused by many dozens of people of similar acts, the institutions may give a lot of resources to keeping those accusations out of public attention.

Consider Michael Jackson. Was he “protected” for decades in the same way as BBC celebrity Jimmy Saville? How about Bill Cosby or Arnold Schwarzenegger? How about accusations that many officials of the Roman Catholic Church have been creating “child sex rings” throughout the world (even for many centuries)?

It is understandable that institutions might “cover up” certain practices that could be unfavorable to their public reputation (such as torture or the use of chemical “weapons” against their own population). It is also understandable that institutions might entice people in to participating in “repulsive” activities that can later be used to blackmail them and promote obedience.

Should there be blackmail? There is blackmail.

Should there be institutions? There are institutions.

Should there be idealism? There is idealism.

Should the common people be kept on the edge of hysteria? Either they are or they are not. If not, then perhaps certain institutions are not “doing their job.”

What alternatives do we have to mainstream hysteria? There is respect. We could quietly respect human culture for what it is.

There is also withdrawal. We could withdraw from human culture (or travel somewhere extremely foreign to us) and begin to relax at least a few of our hysterias about “how people should not be” and release our distress about “how institutions should not be” and so on.

Of course, we can also condemn hysteria. We can scream that “hysteria should not be so hysterical!” We can paint slogans on signs and parade down the streets chanting “No more hysteria! No more hysteria!”

What is not possible is humor. Parody is a term that refers to a certain way of using language attentively, but humans clearly are incapable of such feats of intelligence. Also, reverse psychology should not exist, though that is barely worth mentioning because it does not exist and never could anyway.

In conclusion, beware of the contents of the video linked here. Some people have made fraudulent medical claims that it contains ironies presented in ways that can promote relaxation and laughter. This cannot be tolerated. What the world needs now is a constant dose of intense guilt about how you (and everyone else) should experience unconditional love all the time and towards absolutely everyone.

Making friends with the hysterias of confusion, grief, shame, & blame

November 19, 2014

In the course of human events, people may notice preferences and even expectations. One of the most common ways to notice the presence of an expectation is when something else happens other than what was expected.

In contrast, when nothing is expected and something unfamiliar happens, there may be surprise and curiosity and, if there is much interest, learning. But when something is expected and does not happen, that can be quite different.

Instead of ignorance simply being replaced with the new stimulus or perception, when there is already an expectation, that is quite distinct from ignorance. The expectation implies that there is already interest. (If someone is not interested in something, then why form an expectation about it?)

Whenever an expectation is violated (which is inevitable), then there can be confusion. Note that confusion cannot arise without a pre-existing expectation that is erroneous. Total ignorance can lead to surprise, but not to confusion. (Surprises can be scary or fun or many other things.)

Only expectation can lead to confusion: “something is not how I expected it and I do not know why.” When there is an expectation plus an awareness of the violation of some expectation but no further clarity yet, that is called confusion. Someone may not even know which expectation has been violated.

That confusion can lead to seeking clarification and the refining of the expectations. However, that confusion can also lead in to a very distinct pathway, which we will briefly explore now.

I expect something. Something else happens. I am confused. (In other words, I notice that I was already confused about what would happen and then later I suddenly recognized my own prior confusion / erroneous expectation.)

But what next? How do I relate to my own confusion (my error / inaccuracy)? Is it okay to experience occasional confusion? Is it “to be expected?”

Is it ever overwhelming? Is it ever terrifying? Is it ever embarrassing?

Sometimes, an experience of confusion (from an unfulfilled expectation or violated expectation) may lead to embarrassment. Embarrassment is related to shame. That means that I experience fear about one or more other people’s perceptions of me and their behavioral reactions to me (such as violent attack, social shunning, or other punishments).

What next then? Do I withdraw (flee)? What if that simple response to stress is not available? How else could I promote safety?

Do I fight (to promote safety)? Do I freeze (to promote safety)? Do I fake (to promote safety)?

A common reflex for someone who is confused (and then embarrassed about it) is to cast blame. Blame can have an element of antagonism (as in a fight response to the fear / shame).

Blame is a type of complaint: “the only reason that ___ is because the weather is so unusually ______!”

That is basically a request for attention and sympathy. So is this: “the only reason that ______ is because of whoever I blame for this confusing and embarrassing development… and who I blame is ___!”

That is a totally understandable reaction. “I am so confused by the results of my actions that I am embarrassed and so in an effort to attract attention and sympathy and perhaps even assistance, I am blaming ________!”

“Other people should be more _____!”

“I should not have to ______!”

“Do you want to know what I think of that person? ______ is just such a ______!”

Now that I have presented some common patterns in language, you may notice that your behavior may have included some of these statements. (If so, then you are probably over the age of 2.) In fact, you may have noticed quite a few other people who are also over the age of 2, right?

To review, people (by the age of 2) will form expectations and then inevitably some of those get violated and so then people occasionally get confused (and perhaps ashamed about being socially witnessed as confused). That shame can lead to them casting blame.

Blame is a classic coping mechanism in the stages of grieving / learning. Blame can be a form of denial (as in a distraction from the underlying embarrassment or the underlying expectation that was not fulfilled).

Further, blame can lead to resentment, antagonigm, contempt, and lots of arguing: “I think that who is really to blame is not ____, but instead is __________. How can you even be so hysterical to suggest that _______ or that ________? You might as well be saying that _____?!?!?”

All of that is called hysteria. It is still a type of fear and a subset of shame. It is a defense mechanism in the realm of “I do not yet want to simply admit that I expected ________ and instead what actually happened was ______.”

So, how do people relate to the reality that expectations exist and can be violated? What about that confusion can arise, then embarrassment? What about that hysterical blame can arise and then hysterical defenses of the hysterical blame?

What about that sometime around the age of 2, most people develop the capacity to engage in arguments that may appear silly to outsiders? What about that some people continue those arguments for decades, even frequently triggering resentment and contempt so as to justify withdrawal from at least one person who is so unpredictable “because I refuse to update my own expectations in accord with their actual behaviors? I mean… why should I have to!?!?”

Or, maybe someone just seems too erratic for me at a particular time. Maybe my interest in them is not great enough to continue interacting with them because I am not ready to learn that fast. Maybe interacting with them is so challenging to my pre-existing expectations that I can only tolerate them in small doses. “That pesky pest is so annoying!”

If was simply bored, I would not be interested enough to argue, would I? People only argue for decades about things that interest them in some way. Further, people only argue with someone for decades if that other person interests them in some way.

How do I relate to people (such as 2 year-olds) who may on occassion experience confusion, shame, blame, and so on? Do I withdraw from them because they are manifesting a behavioral pattern that I have been repressing? Do I push them away with criticisms and condescension?

If I have been repressing shame, then wouldn’t I flee from any display of shame that scares me? Wouldn’t I flee from anything that scares me? If what scares me is the display of shame, would I flee from whatever scares me?

Further, if for someone reason I was not successful in fleeing, then wouldn’t I attempt to push away the perceived source of stress? Wouldn’t I increase my own stress hormones and go from flight mode to fight mode?

The point is that hysteria is a natural part of life. Some of them last only briefly and some can last decades or even centuries.

Hysteria is a type of fear and the sub-types of hysteria can include grief (a fear about how someone will adapt to some loss or absence) as well as shame (a fear of imagined future punishments) and blame. Blame, when expressed, can lead to compensation and apology and so on. Or blame can lead to other outcomes.

Consider the idea that “____ simply should not exist.” That may already be a form of distressed hysteria, right?

What is so frightening about the possible existence of something to someone that they should say it should not exist? What shames are they attempting to hide, if any?

“Hysteria should not exist! How can all these people still act like 2 year-olds? I mean, seriously, how come they don’t have totally accurate expectations about reality like I do? This is the most frustrating thing ever!”

“I really just don’t understand how all of these people don’t have totally accurate expectations like I do? It’s like they are just freaking out over unfulfilled expectations and that is not what I expected and it is totally freaking me out!?!?!”

“Yeah, that was totally weird, isn’t it? Hey, come jump on this bed with me!”

Hysterias, Hoaxes, & Humor

October 18, 2014

Bob wrote that “Ebola is a hoax.” He was joking. He was making fun of hysteria.

Ebola is not a hoax. It is a real river in Africa. In the 1970s, some people died in the area near that river and then the way they died was named after the Ebola river.


Since then, an average of about one hundred people per year have died from the medical process called “Ebola” (at least that is what has been reported and publicized). Is that a lot of people? It is a lot more than a dozen, right?

I have seen reports showing that around 20,000 people commit suicide each year in the US. If you do not stop what you are doing right now to donate a few hours of your time every week to a campaign for suicide awareness & prevention, then you are probably… an American.

But back to the disease process called Ebola, it can allegedly be spread through very limited ways, like involving certain bodily fluids. In that respect, it is similar to the HIV virus & the medical label “A.I.D.S.”

But should people ever be skeptical of new information? What about skeptical of old, familiar presumptions?

I recently read medical research from 1991 establishing that simple breathing exercises were 100% effective in promoting the health (reducing the symptoms) of people with HIV/ AIDS. The same kind of exercises have “cured” people of asthma and panic attacks and many other diagnostic labels.

What is asthma? It is a process involving hyperventilation and a lack of oxygen in the brain cells.

In fact, when there is a lack of oxygen in brain cells, then that interferes with the brain’s ability to generate electromagnetic current (“energy”). So, there are a few consequences of a “starving” brain and also a few mechanisms for remedying that.

If someone is underwater with no oxygen-rich air to breathe, that could be a problem. However, the more common problem in modern medical contexts is that 90% of people do not have “enough” carbon dioxide in the bloodstream (from too much breathing AKA “mild” hyperventilation). I speculate that it is because they are chronically stressed/ tense/ scared/ traumatized/ zombified.

How is the “behavior” of asthma replaced with the behavior of “healthy breathing?” There are some simple exercises to gradually strengthen certain muscles and to slow down the breathing enough to raise the CO2 levels in the bloodstream. (Check out or for more info.)

Since 90% of people that were measured have been observed to breath at least twice as heavily as would be considered healthy or “normal,” that percentage is far too high (relative to the tiny fraction of people with HIV) to then say that HIV causes mild hyperventilation or that mild hyperventilation causes infecton by HIV. However, if all of the symptoms that are called AIDS disappear because of a simple short breathing exercise, then we can conceive of AIDS as one type of complication of mild hyperventilation (among many others).

As long as somone has adequate oxygen levels in the brain, what if the presence of the HIV virus itself has NO MEDICAL CONSEQUENCE? When oxygenation of brain cells is too low, there are a variety of problems- from mild to severe. However, because of the worship of diagnostic labels like AIDS and Ebola by the western masses, they may panic at the sound of those words. They do not conserve their breath. They do not keep calm.


So, when millions or billions of people have low oxygen levels in their brains, then isn’t it obvious that they make demons out of words? They worship AIDS like it is a living demon that possesses organisms and causes illness or death. Is that true? Or, is HIV just one of many viruses that, when an organism’s cells are starving for oxygen due to mild hyperventilation, the presence of the virus can complicate the already compromised health of that organism (such as by produing the EFFECT labeled as A.I.D.S.)?

(Note that the most well-established method for promoting health is called “the placebo effect,” which is basically a reference to any method of tricking a patient in to relaxing their normal level of distress/ hyperventilation. Why doesn’t the placebo effect work in every case? Because some people are not actively sabotaging their immune system with unconscious habits of compromised breathing.)


Here is where we start to get to some interesting issues involving language. People tend to think that there are fundamentally distinct realities, like the reality of carbon and the reality of oxygen. That is absolutely false.

Carbon can change in to something else. “Brain-dead chemists” may be unaware of physics, but it is still common knowledge amongst nuclear physicists that carbon is a relatively stable compound. By compound, I mean that it is made of smaller components.

“Carbon fusion” is the name for the process of carbon combining with hydrogen to form nitrogren. Nitrogen is not a carbohydrate made of some atoms of cabron and some atoms of hydrogen. When nitrogen is created out of carbon and hydrogen, the two stable compounds that were present at first are later absent. They transform in to a new form (creating a new compound through a significant re-organizing of the components of the two prior compounds).

First, there are two distinct stable fields of energy (forms of energetic matter) called carbon and of hydrogen. Then, the two distinct fields (compounds) “fuse” to make a new field (compound form) that displays certain qualities which chemists like to label as “nitrogen.”

So, nitrogen is just a label for one distinct stable pattern of… energy. By the way, the pattern of Nitrogen can shift to Oxygen, then back to Nitrogen, then back once again to Carbon.

the pattern of Nitrogen can shift to Oxygen, then back to Nitrogen, then back once again to Carbon

Next, where does most hydrogen on the earth come from? From solar radiation. Because we think of waves and particles as two isolated realities, we can get confused about the radiating of hydrogen, but that is actually kind of odd that it would be confusing.

Let’s simplify. Waves and particles can be thought of as two distinct types of behaviors.


Carbon and oxygen can be thought of as a two stable patterns of energy. If you add a certain kind of energy to carbon in a certain way, then the new pattern is called nitrogen.

In other words, there is nothing fundamental or eternal about the pattern of energy behaving as carbon. Carbon is just relatively stable (and Carbon-13 is distinct from Carbon-14 in part because one is more stable than the other).

Those two types of carbon decompose at different speeds (with different half-lives). By decompose, we mean to say that they are composites. They are compounds. They are stable compounds made of stable sub-atomic fields of energy (such as electrons, neutrons, and protons).

Matter is an aspect of these energetic fields (which are sometimes referenced as “particles”). Matter is not independent of energy (not a distinct isolated reality).

Mass refers to the amount of attractive energy (gravitational force) created by a certain field. So, we can measure the mass of an energetic field (such as an electron “particle” or an atom of Carbon or a molecule of Carbon Dioxide).

Mass is once again not a fundamental reality. Mass is an effect. Mass is even a process or “behavior” (as in an effect that causes other effects).

Let’s briefly address the issue of “particles” appearing and disappearing. For instance, when neutrinos and anti-neutrinos “appear and disappear,” that is because they are unstable fields (unstable patterns of behavior).

Carbon (such as “carbon-12″) is a much more stable field. So, carbon-12, carbon-13, and carbon-14 are similar but distinct aggregates of energy. They have similar yet distinct properties. For instance, the property of mass (or material stability) is slightly different for carbon-12, carbon-13, and carbon-14.

Again, mass is just a property of lasting energetic fields. Some energetic fields can last for a decade (if not disrupted) and other types of fields would never last for an entire second because they are so unstable.

All that finally brings me back to carbon dioxide. That is a label for a molecular compound made of one part carbon and two parts oxygen.

In other words, carbon dioxide always contains oxygen. They are not fundamentally distinct realities. The conceptual model of distinct realities is in fact hysterical (as in unintelligent or delirious).


There are a variety of dimensions, such as length, height, weight, density, temperature, and so on. There are also a variety of distinct perspectives, such as physics and anatomy.

When a biophysicist looks at living tissue, they might note “there is a pH of 6.94 in that tissue, which of course totally impairs the tissue’s ability to utilize oxygen because the electrons that are needed in order to form new electromagnetic valance bonds are too strongly attracted to the excess of protons (which we have measured to be excessive at the precise level known as a pH of 6.94).” That is a valid interpretation. That is very measurable. Every part of that statement can be tested for accuracy.

When someone who is not very competent in physics but very familiar with anatomy looks at the same tissue, they might say “that is a cancer tumor.” That is also a valid interpretation. However, it lacks the precision of the statement of the physicist.


If someone were to translate all of that in to a few different languages, all of that could still be valid constructions in language. They could all be useful in some way.

Every perspective is also limited. One perspective may be concise but vague. Another perspective may be precise in one aspect but misses a lot from the bigger picture.

The interpretation that produces the most profit for a business may not be the interpretation that promotes health with great efficiency. Each perspective naturally  creates interpretations (and mesaurements) that are in accord with the motives and presumptions of that perspective.

Modern medicine is reasonably effective at identifying various kinds of symptoms through precise testing. One possible problem with modern medicine is the low level of competence in the science of physiology. (Most MDs will be not just ignorant but confused by why a certain biochemical effect will happen 90% of the time but not the other 10%.)

If they simply did not know, that would be mere ignorance. However, if they thought that they knew something (something which observations were clearly contradicting), that misperception or misinterpretation produces confusion. That is precisely what happens that often leads to hysterical arguing: “Your little theory that cholesterol is made by the liver to promote health is insulting because it contradicts my vilification of cholesterol as a demon that must be worshiped with attention and then ritually attacked.”

An MD may experience confusion, shame about the confusion, and then hysteria. What appears simple to a physicist may be a mystery to an MD- or even confusing and threatening. Since biochemistry is really just a specific subcategory of physics, a physicist may look at the same data (or same patient) and instantly recognize what is “really” going on.  An MD may be “blinded” by their conceptual model of worshiping cholesterol as a demon.


So, in addition to the issue of incompetence in physiology amongst the medical priesthoods, there is also the related issue of arrogant hysteria. They may be distressed at the idea of learning something new, especially if it contrary to some religious dogma that they have believed and also have publicized for decades (sincerely but inaccurately).

When a person says “that effect is incurable,” they may mean that they are ignorant of how to stop producing that effect. However, most MDs do not even relate to diagnostic labels as effects. They may presumptively relate to certain diagnostic labels as causes. That simple error can lead to a lot of confusion, a lot of embarrassment, and, eventually, a lot of learning.

The logical advantage: results beyond mainstream hysterias

September 9, 2014

Logic is what makes the difference


Have you ever considered the possible value of studying logic? Logic involves a specific kind of attention to language.

We’ll explore exactly what logic is in a moment. First, why would we explore logic? What benefit could it have?

The logical advantage

Logic is what makes the difference between people understanding each other or people arguing and fighting. It is very helpful for clear, concise, efficient communication.

Logic is also what makes the difference between investors who consistently make far above average profits and investors who are surprised by huge losses (occasionally or frequently). Surprised investors may get embarrassed about their losses, then even panic and start blaming others for their own choices (to gamble without a full comprehension of the actual risks). In other words, if they previously recognized and expected certain possible risks, then they would not be surprised if that outcome develops. So, therefore their surprise is an indication of their prior lack of attention to that potential result.
For instance, people may say, ”but I have a piece of paper right here guaranteeing that the insurance company will pay me in a case like this!” Shapes of ink on paper do not guarantee that the insurance company will be in business or will have the funds to keep every single promise (within a huge pile of unfunded promises) that it has made.

Legal guarantees are just legal guarantees. They are not actual restrictions on future developments, right?

Someone attentive to logic will recognize what a legal guarantee is and what it is not. They will also recognize (without emotional distress) that an insurance company is a business that is accumulating a huge collection of legal liabilities and then gambling on the possibility that the company will have enough new revenues (like from monthly premiums) to cover whatever legal obligations they have at any particular time.

Or, people may say, “but the government regulates this kind of investment, so it must be safe because the government would never support anything that was not beneficial to all of the participants involved.” With that hysterical “logic,” the people who buy state lottery tickets will brag about how they “know” that they have better odds than the people who play bingo at church or who play slot machines at the casino. “We know that our lottery tickets are good investments because we bought them directly from the government!”

Logic vs. mainstream hysterias

We can generally contrast logic with hysteria (as in distress or panic). Let’s consider now how presumptions and frustrations can be experienced in two totally distinct ways.

Someone attentive to logic will recognize frustration as a signal that there is a presumption that differs from reality. They may be curious or even committed to identifying the various presumptions (which are often unstated) and then assessing each presumption relative to the higher standard of reality. Imprecise presumptions can be refined. Irrelevant presumptions can be discarded.

They can calmly look for the unfulfilled interest behind the frustration, then discard or refine methods that are ineffective (disappointing). The frustration and disappointment are welcomed as opportunities to identify potential sources of huge improvements in efficiency and satisfaction. All of this contrasts sharply with hysterical reactions.

In a panic of distressed hysteria, the logical functions of the brain can get buried under the stress hormones designed for physical activity (for fleeing and for fighting). When there is a contrast between presumptions and reality, terror floods through the organism. Instead of favoring the actual reality as the higher standard over the presumption, some aspect(s) of reality may be neglected or even condemned as “wrong” or “something that should not be.”

The presumption (though clearly inconsistent with reality) may be worshiped, then defended, justified, and glorified. Reality is devalued or even totally sacrificed while the presumption is elevated to the status of divine.

Contrary evidence (or even a skeptical curiosity) can be targeted as threatening. Displays of aggression (arrogance) may arise in an effort to distract attention away from obsolete presumptions (and the faulty logic that depends on them).

Agonizing may develop because the rejection of reality requires an anxious intellectual activity (in regard to how to fix reality to make it conform to the favored presumption). Also, there can be agonizing about any future reality that is contrary to an important presumption: how can that embarrassing “evil” be prevented? The result can be political campaigns and even the mass programming of curriculum to promote one perception over any perception that threatens the recognition of the presumption as just a presumption.


The hysterical will anxiously ask “how can we make the world from how it should not be in to how it should be (according to whatever presumptions)?” They will collect in to groups of fundamentalists and fanatics and then fight all of the other hysterical idealists who agree with them that the world should not be how it is, but who only agree on a portion of the presumptions about how the world should be.

“Those people are crazy hysterical idealists who only agree with me about 86% of how reality should be (or certainly no more than 97%). How can they be so foolish? What is it with people these days?!?! Let me think of all of the irrelevant reasons that I can use to justify dismissing the very frightening display of skepticism and alternate interpretations!”

Frustration: a threat or an ally?
So, those in hysterical panics have no real appreciation for their frustration as a signal to slow down and invest in logic. They just go back and forth from one level of frustration and anxiety to another: moderate, extreme, a brief relief through exhaustion, then another round of escalating frustration, resentment, and animosity.

“Those horrible other people are getting in the way of me fixing reality so that it conforms to how I wish it would be! In fact, I think some of them may be to blame for reality being how it is (and for my very important presumptions being inconsistent with the inconvenient and frustrating details of reality). Actually, it is not reality that is frustrated me, but those unreal people over there- yes, so unreal- who are the ones who are frustrating me. I need to do something about them. This frustration should not be how it is. I deserve better. I should not be in this hell. Once those people stop ruining everything, then I am going to fix reality (to make it from how it actually is in to how it should be) so that I can earn my way in to an eternal heaven eventually, but just not yet.”

Recall the teaching of the Ancient Hebrew prophet Isaiah: “Note that some worship without effect, teaching human presumptions as if they are the highest standards of reality.”

(In the Gospels of Mark and of Matthew, Jesus Christ directly quotes that teaching of Isaiah. Comprehension of these teachings in modern Judaism and Christianity are evidently quite rare.)

What if we respected frustration instead of condemning it, avoiding it, fearing it? What if we recognized what presumptions are? What if we respected how they can be useful, but also can lead to confusing one thing for something else? What if we were alert to the dangers of presumptive idealism and making our preferences in to full-scale hysterical idolatry?

Presumptions do not need to be avoided (which would be an extreme of delusional perfectionism). Presumptions can be respected without worshiping them in hysteria or defending them in a panic. Presumptions can be recognized, then evaluated objectively by measuring reality, and then updated or discarded.

So what exactly is logic?

Logic is a specific kind of attentiveness to language (a certain kind of mindfulness). Studying logic, we can explore how certain initial presumptions or speculations can be connected to a later assertion or claim. We can even notice how certain pre-existing conclusions can be justified or rationalized through constructing certain premises or seeking out certain information as evidence, then presenting it in order to bias others toward our pre-existing conclusion.  In mild hysteria, unsound logic is also used to resist reality and learning, and then that process can be ironically labeled by the hysterical one as “skepticism.”

The presenting of particular information as evidence (even as justifying a conclusion deemed favorable) may be done in a few different ways. We could call some presentations logical and some presumptive or even hysterical.

Here are some examples:

Cholesterol levels are high around tissues that are damaged, therefore cholesterol is the sole possible cause of the damage to the tissue.

Fire trucks are frequently present near burning buildings, therefore fire trucks are the sole possible cause of the fires that burn the buildings.

Once a particular presumption is worshiped as sacred, then all forms of skepticism about it are considered threats. Curiosity becomes the most disturbing of all possibilities (as George Orwell would have said, “in a time of universal deceit and denial”).

But the idea that mass hysteria and delusion are especially new is also presumptive. Sure, modern systems of indoctrination (such as cable television and public schools with their common core curriculums) are unusually efficient. With advanced technology, tiny groups can promote a historic extreme in consensus groupthink among immense masses of people. However, what if logic has never been especially popular?

Why are people so easily deceived when a perceived authority announces a new cause for hysteria and paranoia? When the high priest of the ministry of health presents a correlation about high levels of cholesterol as a cause, why are people so naïve? Why do they then defend their presumption to avoid being revealed as naïve?

It is simple enough. The ancient reptilian brain takes over the neurological functioning of the masses. The elite recognize this and create programming systems to install propaganda.

The logic of programming hysterias

A group of naïve people herded together in to a kindergarten class can be fed information like “cholesterol is a substance that your liver makes to poison you.” Then, they can be manipulated in to repeating back the propaganda slogans to receive social validation from the teacher in front of the whole class. They are given report cards and, if their blind conformity is sufficient, then they get promoted to higher grade levels and eventually receive a diploma or even a PhD.

The same basic methods are used in churches as well. In other settings, like plantations, the use of propaganda is less emphasized in favor of physical coercion, torture, and threat of human sacrifice.

In the specific case of taxation, the agents of the government intimidate their economic resources, promoting compliance through threats of arrest, incarceration, asset seizure, garnishment, and foreclosure. To minimize rebellion and competition, the government agents criminalize unauthorized acts of extortion. This maintains a near monopoly on extortion within their system of taxation to redistribute wealth from their human resources to the agents of coercion.

Once the masses are sufficiently terrified in to compliance, then the court system can dictate what form of payment of the invented tax liabilities is allowed. A court could allow taxes to be paid in many different ways, like wheat, firewood, or gold. Or, a court may allow only one form of payment.

Whether a court accepts several kinds of payment or just one form of payment, their system of intimidation can create a lasting surge in public demand for that form of payment. In the case of the Confederate States of the Southern U.S. in the 1860s (the Civil War era), certain pieces of paper were accepted as a valid way to pay taxes to the ruling court system. However, as soon as that court system was defeated and the ruling court system was suddenly the United States (not the Confederacy), then public demand for the confederate currency disappeared almost instantly.

What is the basis of power for every government in human history? The rulers have military superiority over the ruled.

Further, lots of propaganda can be publicized to discourage people from recognizing that guns are what give courts power, not incidental things like gold. (Without the guns of the court system, the people would not be interested in gathering gold to pay debts to their well-armed extorters who dictate that only gold can be used in repaying the debt… because the court system has created a monopoly of exclusive access to all the gold mines in the region.)

Governments may say that “Unauthorized killing is a shameful crime.” Then, they may add that military drafts are sacred institutions and that failure to participate in government-approved slaughters and genocides is also an even more shameful crime.

However, there is no objective difference between one slaughter and another. Every government justifies their own slaughters (usually as revenge for other slaughters or as pre-emptive strikes to protect the masses from… unauthorized warfare).

But for those deep in programmed hysterias, these ideas may be disturbing or spark shame or guilt. “Are you saying that the story of Santa Claus was deceptive and not literally true in every detail? But I do not want it to be true that I used to be naïve. I would rather to have never been naïve and certainly not now. Go away, you pesky jerk. You are too analytical. It is infuriating.”

So, they may launch heroic crusades to save the world from deception (and from corrupt governments). What other kind of governments are there? There are many fantasy governments that exist in language, but perhaps have little resemblance to anything evident in actual human history.

So what is the logical advantage?

The logical advantage is to welcome the recognition of hysterias and similar mass delusions. We respect them. We do not deny them or try to hide them or prevent them or even justify them.

We just respect that hysterias exist (or at least might). We do not worship them constantly with sincere condemnations or any other form of attention.

What we do is to welcome our own interests. We do not relate to them with shame (even if we modestly keep them private or secret… or pretend that they are not what they are).

We can respect the Hebrew Commandment of “do not commit perjury” (as we respect the immense power of court systems of extortion and intimidation). We can recognize that “thou shalt not lie” is simply a behavioral manipulation, not a credible translation of an ancient criminalization of perjury. When we are under the physical domination of a regulatory supervisor, then we can respect that reality.

We do not harbor any hang-ups or fixations or attachments. If one shows up, we can recognize it and release it. We do not harbor hysterias.

Instead, we recognize our own interests and pursue them. We do not deny past naivete.

We do not worship sincerity as if good intentions were anything more than good intentions. We do not worship determination as if it would cure for frustration to just keep repeating the same thing over and over again expecting different results.
In other words, we respect this simple philosophical principle:

“If you have sincerity and determination, but not logic, then still you have nothing of real value. You are missing the point.”

(See 1 Corinthians 13 & 14)

What results do we get?

In regard to investing, we get consistent returns far above average. In regard to communication, we are attentive, discerning, selective, and effective.  In regard to health, we avoid the massive tangles of confusion produced by mainstream indoctrination about health (i.e. “poisonous cholesterol, demonic possession by a living entity called cancer, etc”) and we simply promote health (using highly efficient methods that we have no particular interest in any government institutions approving or publicizing).

In many other realms, we consistently produce far above average results. Why? It is not that our methods are actually all that radical or complex.

The masses just do things very inefficiently (in accord with their programming) and we avoid the massive pitfalls of complacent “tunnel vision.” By minimizing or entirely avoiding the immense risks of “average” methods, we consistently produce far above average results.

“Get right with God” – a challenge to worshipers of blind conformity

September 7, 2014
“Get right with God.”What does this phrase mean? Of course, the word “God” has been used by many people in many ways. What does it mean to “get right with god?”

It could mean a contrast with “being right according to some set of localcustoms- in blind conformity with them.” Even if the customs are followed, they can be followed out of respect and convenience, not out of terror and vanity.We recognize that customs are different from place to place and they come and go. They certainly have their purposes and their importance, but they are not to be worshiped as eternal foundations for human conduct.

So, to get right with God could be to reduce our attention to customs. We do not need to worship them by obsessively defending them. We also do not need to worship them by obsessively condemning them, attacking them, or reforming them (so that certain current customs which we worship as evil can be replaced by certain other customs which we worship as the key to heaven on earth).

Discard utopian fantasies. Those who tell you that heaven is a future outcome that you should help them produce through political reform and political salvation are misleading you. Even if they are sincere, they are still false prophets. To be more specific, they are using the word heaven in a way that may not be good at all for YOU. So, beware of them.

Heaven is eternal. That means it is always available without any required rituals (or reform campaigns). Rituals can certainly promote the awareness of heaven. Rituals do not bring heaven to someone. They bring someone to notice the eternal presence of heaven.

What exactly is heaven? It is one possible human condition. Heaven has often been described, for instance, as peaceful or serene.

Can someone already be peaceful or serene? Is a ritual required to be peaceful or serene? Is there any intermediate step required as a pre-requisite for being peaceful and serene (or is serenity always directly available… even to one who has been anxious or panicking)?

“Get yourself together” is a phrase that I have heard many times. Apparently, the idea is that someone is already “not together” (as in “scattered mentally”) and then is going to “get themselves together.” It is a rather strange saying if taken literally, but as long as two people both know what is meant by it, it can be perfectly useful, right?
“Get yourself together” may be extremely close to what I mean by “Get right with God.” It means a certain kind of shift of focus. If focus has been on a bunch of customs and obsessively conforming to those customs, then “get right with God” could mean to withdraw attention from such distracting “trivia” and focus instead on being serene.
But is a direction to “get right with God” no more than “calm down?” It is not just a momentary intervention. It is much bigger than that. It is approaching a much more  comprehensive instruction like “live your whole life in heaven.”
It may mean to calm down, but it also may mean to take new, decisive action. There are certain patterns of activity that correspond to relaxing our prior attention to social customs.We can withdraw from those who worship social customs- even if we maintain those customs. The issue is that people who worship a custom are operating from a background of anxiety (like concern for what others think), not from a background of respect for the actual function of the custom. They actually neglect the spirit of the custom by ignoring why it exists.

Of course, it is fine for people to be loyal to a custom without understanding it. People learn the custom itself before they learn the reasons for it, just like a small child is first taught to only cross a road while holding the hand of an adult. The child is trained to conform as a priority and understanding the custom is simply not the first priority.

So, one problem can be when people who do not understand a custom begin to worship it (often presuming that they do understand it). How do they relate to the custom? First, they glorify it (often relating to it as a practice that should be universal, rather than something that is merely customary or routine). Soon, they may bully others even for as small an issue as failing to glorify the custom.

Why are they so insecure about whether others glorify a custom? The reality is that they do not understand the custom. They have a social anxiety about any lack of conformity to the custom because they are terrified of the possibility that someone might question- even respectfully- the value or function of the custom.

“It is sacred! It is what makes us different from those who follow 98% of the same customs that we do, but not that other 2%.”In other words, they use their public display of loyalty to the custom as a cover to distract people from the fact that they have no idea what the actual value of the custom is. They simply conform blindly- like a small child who has been trained not to cross the road without an adult- and yet they are immensely ashamed of the simple fact that they are simply conforming blindly, so they make a big drama of tantrums and bullying and so on.

They are far from heaven. They are in the temporary distress of hell. Their blind conformity to customs does them no good in regard to accessing heaven because customs are not the way to access heaven.

The child who is waiting for the adult so that they can cross the road together is not conforming to access heaven. In fact, they may be rather impatient, yet still conform. Conformity can be very valuable, but worshiping conformity can be an immense risk.

Alertness is a different state than blind conformity. When someone is obsessing about customs, they are not being attentive to what is actually happening. They are in a state of latent panic (a state of anxious, hysterical distress).

When groups of people get together to encourage each other to neglect actual alertness and logic in order to obsess over whatever customs they agree to worship as the best customs, that can lead to very risky behavior for the entire group. They are like a group of mountain climbers who are operating on a protocol that is relevant for boating.

By obsessively doing the things that are very appropriate while boating, they can create immense dangers. They discard alertness and wisdom in order to have the social validation of the group.

“We are the safest boaters on this mountain. Look at those other fools who are using climbing equipment. We do not need climbing equipment because we have a sail which will catch the energy of the wind and lift us up toward the mountain top so that we can go faster and with less exertion.”
They are not simply proud (like calmly aware of their own competence). They are presumptive and naive and arrogant.For one person to climb a steep mountain without equipment would be risky, but they would go slowly. However, it is very dangerous for a group of people to climb a mountain while rejecting the idea that mountain climbing is best done in a certain way distinct from what works while boating.

Those who insist on boating their way up the mountain might be overly enthusiastic. Of course, they also might ridicule anyone who questions the prudence of their boating protocol while climbing a mountain.

“Oh, and look at those fools who are using a legal protocol to climb the mountain. They are consulting their lawyers about the best way to climb. What fools?!?! Don’t they see that climbing a mountain requires other customs and routines than winning a court case?”

Note that fundamentalists have no issue with questioning other forms of fundamentalism. In fact, in order to distract themselves from their own hysteria, they may ridicule the hysteria of others “religiously.”

The legalistic mountain climbers may gather together and criticize the stupidity of theboater mountain climbers. They may even yell taunts at the boaters: “How can you people think that you can climb this mountain without first getting a piece of paper and then using ink to make some shapes on the paper that are symbolic codes to specify the nature of your relationship to the mountain?”The boaters dismiss the content of the taunts of the legalistic fundamentalists, but they still are terrified of anyone questioning the protocols that they worship, so they are likely to return their own taunt back at their critics. “How can you people climb a mountain without a proper sail? Where is your mast? Where is your anchor? You people know NOTHING about climbing mountains the right way!”

The boaters fell much better after reassuring themselves that their critics can be dismissed as fanatics and fundamentalists. Instead of acknowledging any intelligent questions, they seek out the most bizarre criticisms to ridicule those critics and ignore the presence of actual skepticism, which is the real threat to them and their blind arrogance. To avoid admitting to the existence of skeptics (to the idea of boating protocols as the best way to climb a mountain), the boating loyalists focus on the idiocy of the legalistic mountain climbers.

They may agree that the legalistic mountain climbers are similar to them in that everyone is climbing mountains. That will be considered a small justification for a pretense of respect for the legalists. “At least they are smart enough to be climbing a mountain, but they are a bunch of arrogant, blind conformists!”

People who are not climbing the mountain at all generally are ignored by the boating mountain climbers and the legalistic mountain climbers. Further, people who are actually at the top of the mountain are generally ignored as well. No, let’s complain instead about that other group nearby to us who are going up the mountain about as slowly as we are.

If we do talk about the folks at the top, the legalists and boaters might briefly agree though. “How did those people at the top of the mountain get there? They must have broken the rules to get there! They are there unjustly. They cheated by using mountain climbing equipment. That is unethical and it is disrespectful of the mountain to wear spikes on your shoes while climbing. It damages the mountain! It causes erosion! It makes a smooth footpath up the mountain that is easy to follow… and that could lead to even more people trying to access the peak without the proper sailing equipment!”

The critics (among the boaters and the legalists) do not call their criticism envy. They just agree that the people at the top of the mountain clearly should not be there now because they used the wrong methods to get there. The boaters focus on the lack of the use of a sail by the people at the mountain top. The legalists focus on the lack of a pre-approved climbing itinerary signed, dated, notarized, and filed with the county regulatory agency.

“Come down here right this instant and get proper documentation from us or else… or else… or else we are going to sit right here and wait for you because those are some steeps slopes between you and us. You are under arrest!”

In addition to the various patterns of language used by the various critics, there is also the issue of risk. Because they form in to big groups, they may antagonize other groups and get in to conflicts. Further, even without the presence of other groups, their attention to issues like conformity to the customs of sailing can distract them from alertness to the mountain they are climbing.Not only are they neglecting to be attentive to the mountain. In addition to that, they may be doing things that are extremely risky while mountain climbing. They are not just inattentive to being safe on the mountain. They are oblivious. They may be doing things – with tremendous obsessiveness and passionate sincerity- that will predictably be catastrophic somewhere between where they are now and the top of the mountain.

So, people who are smart enough to keep a safe distance from any group of fanatics are better off than those who rashly climb mountains enthusiastically as they worship the customs relevant for sailing. The recluses have a better chance of figuring out for themselves what works well for mountain climbing. They are not avoiding learning (like those who are worshiping the customs of sailing and are totally inattentive to the actual process of climbing the mountain).

When a few people who are smart enough to avoid fundamentalism first notice other “loners,” how do they act? They may be hesitant. They may even be presumptively critical of others to test for fundamentalism and hysteria. Or, they may be quite eager… even too eager.
However, no matter what, they are not distracted from learning by fixating of defending certain customs. They will experiment. They will experience successes and failures. They will learn.
Further, there is an ancient legend that the group at the top of the mountain used to be below the top and climbing up. Some people may have been born in to that culture and so they are excellent climbers (even if they are not very skilled at other tasks like boating or the practice of law). However, long ago, before that culture was established, is it possible that there were a few loners who found each other, got themselves together, got right with God, and then created some customs that are effective for climbing mountains?

The idea that customs were created by people is considered a simple fact by some groups. Other groups call such “accusations” by the label of “heresy.” “How could our customs which are eternal and proclaimed by God be anything like the customs of other groups who also claim that their customs are eternal and were proclaimed by God. They are illogical and insane and hysterical and heretical. Now, let’s go kill them so that they do not confuse future generations with displays of curiosity and skepticism.”

Rumors that the group now at the top of the mountain would ever encourage bickering and warfare amongst the boaters and the legalists are quite unpopular among the boaters and legalists. According to the tradition of both of those two groups, the theory of a conspiracy to keep the boaters and the legalists fixated on fundamentalism and animosity between the two groups is called by the very evil label of a “conspiracy theory.”

For both groups, how do they relate to the theory that their own religious customs were influenced by or even created by another group in order to dominate and exploit the naive and foolish and arrogant? They ignore it and focus on the stupidity of those who attempt to climb mountains without the use of sails (when the critics are the boaters) or with the use of sails (when the critics are the legalists).

They both worship slogans like “get right with God.” They have no idea why the custom of saying “get right with God” was started or by whom. They just worship the customary propaganda that they have been trained to worship.

What would be really utopian, according to you, is if the world was one day in the future permanently rescued from all customs. Customs themselves are the big problem, right?

Those who assert that there is such a thing as irony or sarcasm or parody are probably just a bunch of reverse psychologists and their conspiracy theories can be instantly discarded as no more relevant to mountain climbing than the customs of that other group of fanatics over there who are so unlike us. They are blind. They are conformists. They are worshiping trivia and neglecting what is best.

They worship the ideal of “what is best” with their lips, but they know not what they are doing. They know not what they are saying. Their worship has is irrelevant in regard to noticing heaven (or even totally contrary to that possibility, a crippling distraction).

“Their worship is a farce, for they teach man-made ideas as commands from God.”

“Rightly did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written: ‘THIS PEOPLE HONORS ME WITH THEIR LIPS, BUT THEIR HEART IS FAR AWAY FROM ME. 7‘BUT IN VAIN DO THEY WORSHIP ME, TEACHING AS DOCTRINES THE PRECEPTS OF MEN.’ 8“Neglecting the commandment of God, you hold to the tradition of men.”

Mark 7:6-8


The Lord says: “These people come near to me with their mouth and honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me. Their worship of me is based on merely human rules they have been taught.”

Isaiah 29:13


Logical psychology: Recovering from the terrified arrogance of mainstream hysterias

September 6, 2014

Logical psychology: Recovering from the terrified arrogance of mainstream hysterias

Have you ever noticed that a sequence of words was intriguing to you? Maybe they were moderately unfamiliar (as in notably different what you would expect).

Sometimes we may notice that most of our interactions and conversations seem very predictable (even boring). We form expectations based on noticing consistent patterns. We develop a set of expectations and then presume that life is going to continue to operate according to whatever patterns that we have learned to expect. However, we may not even be aware of our presumptions.

If you can drive a car, then you can imagine approaching a busy intersection with a red traffic light. Imagine that you are heading north. As you get close to the intersection and slow down, you notice that there is very heavy traffic flowing across the 4-way intersection (from the right and left along the lanes going east and west).

As you are almost to the intersection, you were already expecting the light to change from red to green soon and finally it does. If there are no vehicles ahead of you in your lane, then you can expect to safely enter the intersection since the light is green, right?

You expect the flow of cross-traffic to stop, right? However, do you presume that it has stopped just because you are facing a green light? Or, do you look to check before you proceed in to the intersection?

Did I mention that as you approached the intersection, you heard a bunch of loud sirens and saw flashing lights? The heavy flow of traffic so far has included two huge firetrucks and four police cars, plus now that you look you can see an ambulance coming. It does not look like the driver is planning to stop even though the traffic light in their direction is apparently red.

Again, the traffic light right ahead of you is clearly green. You expected it to turn green and it did. You may have expected the flow of cross-traffic to stop by the time you saw the green traffic signal.

However, you can see the ambulance speeding toward the intersection from the east (from your right). You can also see that the ambulance has crossed over now out of the normal east-bound lanes in to an empty west-bound lane (the lane you would be in if you turned right).

So, since your traffic light is green, you can expect it to be safe to go ahead and turn right in to the lane with the speeding ambulance, right?

You can safely presume that whatever you expect is always what will happen, right? Even though you see the ambulance, you could go ahead and turn now with plans to later use the excuse that you had expected that lane to be empty, right? After all, what could be safer than turning now when not only do you clearly have a green light, but there is also an ambulance nearby in case of any unexpected collisions?

In you case you did not notice, I was demonstrating the difference between expectations and presumptions. Having an expectation does not require making a presumption. You can expect the traffic intersection to be empty and safe, but still know that it is just an expectation, so you actually verify your expectation. You could make the presumption that your expectation is accurate without checking, but you could also check the actual traffic.

In both cases you have an expectation. In one case you could make a presumption and act on it without verifying it.

With presumptions, you may not even know that you have an expectation. You may just presume that the current situation is bascially identical to all previous situations and so you take action presumptively. That can be a source of problems.

For instance, you could get in to a head-on collision with a speeding ambulance and then suffer serious injuries or even instant death. Or, you could barely avoid a collision, get embarrassed, and then yell at the stupid driver for doing something that you did not expect (driving in to the intersection in disregard of the traffic light).

That other driver violated not just your expectation but also your presumption. They revealed your lack of attentiveness to the actual flow of traffic.

You may tell the story for weeks of the stupid punk driving the ambulance without regard for the red traffic light plus going in the wrong direction and surprising you. You do not like surprises.

You tell the story over and over to the other inmates in the county jail. Eveentually, you go to court and tell the story again to explain why you were justified in doing what you did.

When the prosecutor refers to your behavior as a crime, you could be offended and yell threats of violence. You could demand that the bailiff arrest the prosecutor for what you call their “presumptuous and rude display of insanity, contempt, mental illness, and total ignorance of right and wrong.”

As you finally get to tell your story, you anticipate the sympathy of the judge and the jury and even the prosecutor. All of these errors are going to be corrected once you tell people what really happened.

They just do not understand yet how you were doing the right thing and the idiot driving the ambulance is the one who deserves to be in jail. You are just going to tell them and straighten out this whole little misunderstanding of theirs.

Your only friend in jail even said that you should expect an apology letter and probably a few thousands dollars to be awarded to you for the emotional distress that this injustice to you has caused. All of the other inmates laughed when you told your story, which is obviously evidence that they are intellectually inferior to you. Who wants to be friends with people as dumb as them, right?

You think of your one friend who agreed with all of your presumptions and of course you consider their agreement to be a sign of intelligence. Why? Because finally someone undertsands you.

What do I mean by “understands you?” I mean that they acted in conformity to your expectations and preferences.

So, I began by saying “have you ever noticed that a sequence of words was intriguing to you?” By now, you may be wondering what I meant by “terrified arrogance.” Or, perhaps it is already quite clear.

When someone has naive expectations and presumes that reality will always conform to their expectations, then that can lead to an exposure of the naive expectations as being naive expectations. When the expectations are revealed as only expectations, then people can feel confusion, terror and panic.


They can be worried that others will recognize that their expectations were actually just expectations, not reliable principles for how life actually goes. They can be scared of criticism and punishment. They can be scared of being recognized as confused or scared. They may shout that “I am not scared!”

So, in a terrified hysteria, they can condemn whatever event violated their expectations. They can arrogantly threaten those who do not operate according to their expectations (like the ambulance driver, the prosecutor, and all those stupid, law-breaking inmates who laughed at your story of how the people who made the traffic light victimized you).

Don’t these people realize that you were sincere in your expectations? You did not drive in to the intersection by accident. You drove in to the intersection on purpose because the light was clearly green!

You did the right thing. Other people were wrong. You were right. You are still right. The other people are still wrong.

If there is a condemnation made of some past event because of terror, could that be arrogance? If there is an acceptance of a past event as surprising and even frightening or confusing (because it exceeded your expectations), then that would be respect and humility rather than arrogance and contempt, right?

If there is a condemnation made of some specific indivudal or group because of terror, could that also be arrogance? If there is an acceptance of their past action (or inaction) as surprising and even frightening or confusing (because it exceeded your expectations), then that would still be respect and humility rather than arrogance and contempt, right?

Now, perhaps you are sufficiently clear about what I meant by terrified arrogance. Note that I am not asserting that there is any other kind of arrogance except for terrified arrogance.

Arrogance is a pattern of behavior to hide a lack of confidence. There is a background of private terror that someone’s lack of confidence will be recognized, so arrogant boasting is emphasized socially. The perceived threat presented by possible skeptics and critics can be targeted for ridicule and abuse. Others can be repulsed or pushed away by the harshness, aggression, bullying, and coercion of the arrogance.

Those who dared to display skepticism in regard to your sacred expectations and idolatries can be systematically targeted for defamation and sabotage. Your resentment of them is deemed by you to be justified, certainly not a sign of insecurity. Don’t be insulting!

You are not jealous of them. That is silly.

You are not over-reacting. That is hysterical.

You are not upset. You are just standing up for what is right. It is also quite pathetic that so many other people are so complacent and naive, unlike you.

Now, so far we have been using an example about driving in to an intersection and nearly colliding (or actually colliding) with a speeding ambulance. That was an example that I just made up for educational purposes.

Next, we’ll talk about a few actual cases in which I have been arrogant. Let’s also talk about mainstream hysterias, how they form, and how they relax.

Let’s see if we can even produce a fully recovery from any terrified arrogance that I might still have… because I certainly would not want to imply that someone as mature as you could still have naything left to you learn ever. That would be simply hysterical, right?


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 297 other followers

%d bloggers like this: