Posts Tagged ‘hysteria’

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 http://www.intellectbreathing.com or http://www.normalbreathing.com 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.

energy-matter

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?

On the hysteria of “what’s wrong with humans these days!?!?!”

June 10, 2014

Natasha Ilieva and 10 others like this.

Natasha Ilieva:

is all over the world …what’s wrong with humans
June 6 at 7:26pm · Like · 3

 

J R Fibonacci Hunn:

Apparently Elizabeth is ignorant of the history of governments and their fundamental nature. That would be very frustrating for her! (She might even be saying frustrated things like “what’s wrong with humans!?!?!”)
June 7 at 2:05pm · Edited · Like · 1

 

Natasha Ilieva:

fundamental nature of governments is mirror of human’s awareness dear J R Fibonacci Hunn lol…so “whats wrong with humans” is right question hehehhe
June 8 at 12:22am · Like

 

J R Fibonacci Hunn:

Governments regulate human interactions. That comes in many forms- including organized coercion. Technology changes methods.

The awareness of the human witness does not alter what an instance of capital punishment is. It is still cold-blooded ritual human sacrifice. However, most “liberals” will say “that is horrifying!”

Maybe it is. That may even be the point: to terrify others. I am simply saying that government rituals of public execution are for the purpose of influencing the behavior of groups of humans.
June 8 at 1:14am · Edited · Like · 1

 

Natasha Ilieva:

no dear u will be surprised to know that governments are society mirror …reflection of our interests state of mind and awareness…if not revolution will be only possible way of living …there are powers which work in collective consciousness…if we don’t agree brainwashed by leaders we will not accept their decisions and silly laws …is right first time for everything to happen …for Hitler Stalin Bush and everybody to come and rule…sheep’s accept… they need this lesson and teacher is ready hehehe
June 8 at 1:47am · Edited · Like · 1

 

J R Fibonacci Hunn:

Silly laws huh? I should post my recent article on a new perspective that I got on forgiveness from a Tibetan monk who was tortured by the Chinese government. When you or your family member is jailed or tortured or bombed, I wonder if you would still be so dismissive of government violence….

I consider your perspective idealistic and guilt-centered. If Alaska’s government budget benefits from huge revenues from the oil industry while other US states approach bankruptcy, are the geological facts “just reflections of the people’s state?”

I understand that you may be terrified and cling to your ideology. Great. That is what ideological delusions are for- to pacify the sheep.

How about the province of Alberta- way more oil than any other province in Canada! Way more wealthy, more stable government, etc….That’s just the superior consciousness of the people there, right?
June 8 at 2:06am · Edited · Like · 1

 

Natasha Ilieva:

yes government reflect collective consciousnesses of people…Canada has nothing to do with some other country or race..evolution is going on personal level race nation country and world…government violence is lesson not punishment ..we both with u h…See More
June 8 at 3:39am · Edited · Like

 

J R Fibonacci Hunn:

To me, your presentation is without peace. It is violent in a way subtle way- with passive aggression.

A hurricane violently rips apart the garden you planted, when you violently dragged a rake across the soil and violently ripped weeds out and violently made holes in the mud. The whole orientation of “it is this but not that” is “violent” and argumentative.

What if violence can be a lesson and a punishment? I even said that a well-publicized capital punishment is publicized so as to be a lesson, right?

“My goal is to get free of mind.” Then you claim that are not free of it. Who are you that has been making such presumptions?
June 8 at 3:20pm · Edited · Like

 

J R Fibonacci Hunn:

Here is my latest audio in which I clarify the confusions that people encounter in regard to “getting free of the mind”: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0kQKB6HmU-Q

a new perspective
https://jrfibonacci.wordpress.com/2014/06/07/a-radical-new-persceptive-on-spirituality/
June 8 at 3:19pm · Like · 1 · Remove Preview

 

J R Fibonacci Hunn:

Here is a much shorter piece focusing on the mind’s tendency to condemn and the withdrawing of such hysterical panics of condemnation: https://jrfibonacci.wordpress.com/2014/06/01/is-forgiveness-about-what-someone-else-did-or-about-self-respect/

Is forgiveness about what someone else did or about self-respect?
jrfibonacci.wordpress.com
June 8 at 3:23pm · Like · 1 · Remove Preview

 

Natasha Ilieva:

yes forgiveness serves ur soul not others…is important to delete records of ur mind do not suffer …if God let children to be abused and killed being innocent will u change ur perspective on humans acts..we are souls in body and mind …all what happens is important for the soul not body and mind …they make only to look real but is not …pain is still our teacher …making soul wake up…change the perspective dear go above all mess we do on earth and see the whole plan of creation heheh
Yesterday at 12:07am · Edited · Like

 

J R Fibonacci Hunn:

Your comment, Natasha, looks incomplete. (ok, I see you finished it now.)
Yesterday at 12:14am · Edited · Like · 1

 

Natasha Ilieva:

i love ur restless soul ehhehe
Yesterday at 12:12am · Edited · Unlike · 1

 

J R Fibonacci Hunn: In the “new perspective” audio (and article), I present an unusual relationship between body, soul, and mind. It is not mysterious or conflicted. However, it does not fit with the common idealisms of “the evolution of the soul.” The soul is a “higher self” that does not have fantasies of “personal evolution” and is indeed already operating in the mode that many minds worship as “the ultimate goal.”
Yesterday at 12:14am · Edited · Like · 1

J R Fibonacci Hunn:

“The plan of creation” is already here, right? When the soul witnesses the mind and the personas of the mind, there can be an identifying with some persona as if the persona is the fundamental reality rather than just the temporary branch of an eternal tree.
Yesterday at 12:16am · Like · 1

 

Natasha Ilieva:

no dear u are wrong …see children how different they are since coming in body…souls have their evolution like planets of our solar system…tehre are 7 cycles of transformation we all get trough…
Yesterday at 12:16am · Like

 

J R Fibonacci Hunn:

If you are not open to alternative ideas or understandings, that is okay. You can keep an antagonistic “I’m right and you’re wrong” identity in the mind. That stage of experience is also important, so that you can repel alternatives and explore undistracted one particular ideology or idealism and learn all that it has to offer.
Yesterday at 12:18am · Edited · Like · 1

 

Natasha Ilieva:

i respect all ur ideas they are cosmic mind also but i am interested in pure consciousnesses do u feel the difference lol…not interpretations of truth but truth itself …creation happens every minute …billion realities all are GOD
Yesterday at 12:21am · Edited · Like

 

J R Fibonacci Hunn:

Ah, well thank you for loving my “restless” soul.
Yesterday at 12:21am · Like · 1

 

Natasha Ilieva:

soul is just an atom of light and consciousness…is a bridge between mind and higher self God in us …is limited and slowly transforming in pure light disappears and u are God itself hehehe
Yesterday at 12:22am · Edited · Like

 

J R Fibonacci Hunn:

“Soul” is to me a word that can mean “pure consciousness.” Within the field or theatre of consciousness, mind can set up plays and dramas and then personas can take the stage and argue and agree and so on.
Yesterday at 12:23am · Like · 1

 

Natasha Ilieva:

no soul is teh micro chip of ur computer called JR hehehe
Yesterday at 12:24am · Like

 

J R Fibonacci Hunn:

Mind can ask “silly” questions like “how can I re-unite my soul with pure consciousness?” That could a hysterical (hilarious, delusional) question.

Those kinds of jokes are important in comedies. A good joke can show us the silliness and foolishness of common patterns of thinking and experience.
Yesterday at 12:25am · Like · 1

 

Natasha Ilieva:

ok dear ur soul is the cloves God puts coming in astral levels…ur body is teh machine and mind is the motor is it clear now…when u speak about God divine Universal consciousness see only light like 1000 suns
Yesterday at 12:28am · Like

 

J R Fibonacci Hunn:

I am clear. There is a congruence and consistency apparent within my articles and audios if you care to explore.

However, I do not recognize clarity in your comments about “cloves.” Maybe “auto-correct” jarbled your typing. I am okay with other people using words in other ways than I use them. That is simply an inevitability.
Yesterday at 12:33am · Like

 

J R Fibonacci Hunn:

Maybe you meant “soul is the clothes….”
Yesterday at 12:40am · Like · 1

 

J R Fibonacci Hunn: Personas (personalities, identities) are like characters in a play that one actor can “adopt” briefly. They are like costumes or clothes. That is how I use the term “persona.”
Yesterday at 12:42am · Like

 

J R Fibonacci Hunn:

Per-sona actually comes from a Greek word for the mask worn by an actor in a theatrical performance. The wooden masks had different “sound-holes” built in to the masks, so the voice of the actor would be different as they put on the different masks or “per-sonas.”
Yesterday at 12:43am · Like

 

J R Fibonacci Hunn:

The saint, the villain, the hero, the victim, etc….
Yesterday at 12:44am · Like

 

Natasha Ilieva:

u can call them anyway…u are better in words i in love…so u will explain i will love…we both go in parallel hope to cross in one moment hehehe
Yesterday at 12:44am · Like

 

J R Fibonacci Hunn:

The soul can only love. What the personas do may be of no great importance to the soul.
Yesterday at 12:45am · Edited · Like · 1

 

Natasha Ilieva:

it is important if u kill in this life u will be killed in next …for the spirit is not important pure consciousnesses is there
Yesterday at 12:47am · Like

 

J R Fibonacci Hunn:

Bodies may be mortal. What if the soul is immortal?

If one identifies with the body, so be it. What if the body is simply respected as a useful branch of a sacred tree?
Yesterday at 12:49am · Like · 1

 

J R Fibonacci Hunn:

The one who fears hell may be only a persona. The persona may suffer from guilt and shame and so on. That may be an important learning process.
Yesterday at 12:51am · Like · 1

 

Natasha Ilieva:

http://www.rosicrucian.com/rcc/rcceng00.htm
The Rosicrucian Cosmo-Conception, by Max Heindel
http://www.rosicrucian.com
God-sent are all religions blest; And Christ, the Way, the Truth, the Life, To give the heavy laden rest And peace from sorrow, sin, and strife.
Yesterday at 12:55am · Like

 

Natasha Ilieva:

read that they are close to truth…
Yesterday at 12:55am · Like

 

J R Fibonacci Hunn:

I am clear. I do not seek clarification on these subjects through reading. Thank you for the sentiment.

I shared the article and audio for you to enjoy. The audio contains many silly amusements as well as precise clarity in regard to several issues mentioned in this thread that often people may find confusing.
Yesterday at 1:20am · Like · 1

 

Natasha Ilieva:

go on if this is ur mission do it …everybody seeds on his field don’t judge others job…let them work …God is the judge we are the servants…never forget all roads lead to same destination..is not better road is just TAO…THE PATH
Yesterday at 1:36am · Like

 

J R Fibonacci Hunn:

Some believe that is some distance between them and the destination. Could that be an optional presumption?

“My judgement is that you should not judge me.” Ah, yes, more jokes. I get it!
Yesterday at 1:49am · Like · 1

 

Natasha Ilieva:

see the difference between judge and response …i can be not agree with u coz my level of awareness is different we project our mind on others so many people and opinions…i accept ur opinion don’t judge it just say let it be …in position of “all is God” judgement is useless…all ur videos are good for mind people …so i say seed ur field but don’t judge my seeding hehehe
Yesterday at 2:04am · Edited · Like

 

J R Fibonacci Hunn:

You seem arrogant to me, rather than curious. You present things like “other people are just projecting opinions, but not me.” HA!
19 hours ago · Edited · Like · 1

 

Natasha Ilieva:

ok i give up…let it be ur will not mine…u are right i am wrong hehehhe
14 hours ago · Like

 

J R Fibonacci Hunn:

Your comments can be valid and mine can be different but still valid. Also, I did not mean to imply that you “should” be curious about anything or that you should not be what I call arrogant. I’m just offering you some alternative to the idea that “there must be SOMETHING that is fundamentally wrong!!!” (referencing Elizabeth Warren’s quotation)

Really? What if everything was fundamentally just exactly what it is?
11 hrs · Edited · Like · 1

 

Natasha Ilieva:

all what is wrong is in mind dear not in consciousness…wake up people make them curious to know truth but don’t fall in the trap of interpretations…mind can bring u to nowhere is very limited and works with known information…my goal is unknown …love u
11 hrs · Like

 

J R Fibonacci Hunn:

Yes, when the mind is programmed to make certain unexamined presumptions (like those of Senator Warren) that leads to a hysteria of heroic perfectionism, and then the natural result of the inevitable encounter with reality is self-righteous frustration.

Then she says ignorant things like “the only people who go to jail TODAY are….” What is revealed? Her idealism that in prior times or other places, court systems were much different.

The nature of court systems is organized coercion. That is another word for extortion. Or we can call it taxation. The label “that the mind uses” does not alter the pattern of behavior any more than labeling it in another language like German or Japanese or Arabic.
29 mins · Edited · Like · 1

 

J R Fibonacci Hunn:

Why does she deperately say that they should be different? Her pretense is crumbling. Her denial is crumbling.

When there are illusions or delusions, then there is the potential for disillusionment or waking up. That can be disorienting.
27 mins · Edited · Like

 

Natasha Ilieva:

good ring the bell just don’t become dog barking only…hope all what u discus will have response in ursociety…they need clearance about many points in “american dream” lol
24 mins · Like

 

J R Fibonacci Hunn:

So, we can recognize that there is a pattern of “suffering mind” (or we could even say “border-line” mental illness) that we may perceive with that Senator. Further, there is something we can call mindfulness or enlightenment. That does not cancel the mind or prevent the use of language. That just implies an orderly mind.
22 mins · Edited · Like

 

J R Fibonacci Hunn:

I am not interested in “them” (or in Senator Warren). I am just offering you an example of mindfulness or an awakened mind. You can resist it or argue with it. That is up to you.
23 mins · Like · 1

 

Natasha Ilieva:

babe i just shared others post “what is wrong in American society and see how many words u wrote on my wall hehehehe
22 mins · Like

 

J R Fibonacci Hunn:

Yes, I see how many words we wrote. You can continue to relate to “American society” as a target of condemnation for what is wrong with it (like Senator Warren has done). I am just presenting you the option of respecting it as it is without showing your disdain for it to attract interaction from others (approval or discussion).

Senator Warren is actually a very clever person. I like her research very much in regard to economic analysis and forecasting. I also understand her panicked retreat in to idealism. When I first began publishing commentaries on the future of US and global economics in 2003, it was quite a challenging emotional transition for me as well.
16 mins · Edited · Like

 

J R Fibonacci Hunn:

From the beginning, government has been a system of inequity. When in the 1980s high-ranking US leaders like Caspar Weinberger or Oliver North were involved in smuggling weapons illegally, trafficking cocaine illegally, and money-laundering of their drug proifts, the extremely unusual thing about that is that the public became aware of it. Next, the “justice system” started it’s process and convicted North, but then people like Bush and his drug-smuggling partner Clinton “pardoned” the “criminals.”

What is new about presidential pardons and all the rest? Nothing. This is business as usual. From the 19th century opium trafficking of the British Empire to the CIA’s cocaine operations, governments make certain actions illegal for the public. That helps to reduce competition and raise profit-margins.

The US (with grandpa Prescott Bush) was a source of major support for both Nazi Germany as well as the communist revolution leading to the formation of the USSR. The media and schools may say “those are our enemies,” but what the word “enemy” really means is that the masses are prohibited from being involved in the extremely profitable operations of the Free Masons and Jesuits and so on.

What “those are our enemies” really means is “those are *your* enemies.” The method of “divide & conquer” is not new.

Senator Warren is allowed to speak to a big audience because she is what is called a “useful idiot.” She helps to distract people like you from the simple realities. With the modern internet, hiding history is a new challenge for the elite, so lots of high-intensity political “controversy” is essential.
2 mins · Edited · Like

 

J R Fibonacci Hunn:

Natasha Ilieva wrote: “is all over the world …what’s wrong with humans”

Yes, down with those shameful creatures! Send them to an eternity in hell for their sins.

Clarity in the midst of contradictions and confusion

April 21, 2013

Clarity in the midst of a hysterical panic about confusing contradictions

Entering from California

Entering from California (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Maybe you know that there is a border between the US states of Arizona and California. Imagine two people standing a few feet apart on either side of the border boundary (a signpost or fence or whatever). The one in California points east to Arizona and says “the border is to the east.” The one in Arizona points west to California and says “no, the border is to the west.”

Can you get the silliness of that? Then they are startled and confused and frustrated that someone disagrees with them so they panic and yell (as if that will help their frustration) and soon they get in to a fist fight and eventually die of their wounds.

Now, I have just described to you how most people relate to… almost everything, certainly a lot of political “debate.” There is no “injustice” and no “east” and no “fundamental rights” outside of you. There are developments that you can observe and sense and then interpret and label.

In my example above, I could have used “right and left” instead of “east and west” or I could have used “right and wrong.” I picked a ridiculous example so that you would not have a hysterical outburst of panic and rage about my example, so your understanding would not be clouded by inaccurate presumptions and confusion and hysteria and rage and shame and hostility, as in terrified panicking.

Figure 2: Simple-minded frame-of-reference example

Figure 2: Simple-minded frame-of-reference example (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

JJ replied: 

so you are making some reference as to the perspective of two people or two groups ….. please make this same example work using up and down…. this changes the frame of reference so it is the same for each of the protagonist. and please leave your rage shame and hostility wherever you keep it when not in use.

JR replies:

The issue is not when there are two people who use language consistently. The issue is when there is a contradiction.

Contradiction only exists in language. There are no contradictions external to you. There are only linguistic contradictions. Contradiction could involve two contrasting “dictions” (sayings). If there is a ironic conflict between a linguistic statement and some external reality, we might also call that a “contradiction.”

Regarding your request about “up and down,” it is like when there are two people at the top and bottom of a stairway and a fire in the middle between them. One of them wants to argue about whether the fire is below or above (up or down). That one may be hysterical. That one may scream at the other person to agree with them. That is focusing on the language and not on the fire.

English: United States Supreme Court building ...

English: United States Supreme Court building in Washington D.C., USA. Front facade. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

For another instance, as the US government begins to implement the same policies that it has been implementing worldwide for decades here at home in the US (like in Boston recently), some people will argue hysterically “but that is unconstitutional!” Unconstitutional is a category in language. When the ruling priesthood of the US (the supreme judges of the court of the rulers’ rules) DICTATES that something is unconstitutional, that may be more important than what you or I say. When the Congress passes a new amendment revoking some other amendment, that is a constitutional reform. What is LEGALLY unconstitutional or constitutional can change in two ways: the Supreme Court issues a new ruling or the constitution is changed (or a treaty supersedes it and so forth, like when the ruling powers of Europe took over the US government without firing a shot by placing the Federal Reserve System OVER the existing national government of the US).

Description: Newspaper clipping USA, Woodrow W...

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

The idea that there is a POWERFUL constitution made of paper with powerful shapes of magic ink on the powerful paper is government propaganda. Bullets and bombs have always been the only authority behind that ink on that paper, as well as the only authority behind any court-dictated currency, etc etc etc….

Federal reserve police car, St. Louis, MO

Federal reserve police car, St. Louis, MO (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

A sunset in the Arizona desert near Scottsdale...

A sunset in the Arizona desert near Scottsdale. The climate and imagery are two factors behind Arizona’s tourism industry. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

So, in conclusion, confusion is a sign of inaccurate presumptions. The mature respond to this by correcting their presumptions or at least slowing down with a humble curiosity. The terrified will blame some external trigger for their internal experience of confusion, leading to resentment, hostility, rage, and so on.

That is the basic teaching of the Buddha (the 3rd noble truth, which the prior 2 simply lead up to). However, the vast majority of people who have been exposed to that teaching may have very little actual comprehension of it.

They still think of suffering as something that happens to them. Suffering is something that humans do. It is an activity, a habit, a behavior.

Mostly, suffering is a way to relate to life or label life or interpret life- using language. Suffering is to attribute the cause of confusion to external developments as “what should not be” and then attempt to reform external reality and prevent it from being “what it should not be.” That is the nature of what ancient Hebrew scholars called “hell.”

 

Only the humble enter heaven and experience the peace of heaven because only the humble are willing to consider that their linguistic practices may be factors in their experience of confusion. This is not a moral superiority. Any who could get in to heaven would. This is an issue of  spiritual development, only accessible by grace.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 296 other followers

%d bloggers like this: