Posts Tagged ‘language’

Awakened Language (in a Holy Empire)

March 26, 2015

First, earthlings developed the capacity for language. Only after the formation of certain physical foundations (including in the brain, the ears, and the vocal chords), then humans actually developed language. A variety of dialects and accents formed, then distinct languages.

Eventually, some humans developed special perceptiveness in regard to how language works. They developed special skills in regard to using language efficiently to produce predictable results.

We can recognize language as a type of signaling mechanism. Other creatures besides humans have signaling mechanisms, such as how a male peacock will extend its feathers and then dance around in a certain way. Certain deers will in special circumstances raise their tail to expose the bright white fur that is otherwise hidden. Those visual signals are generally similar to what a police officer might do when guiding traffic at an intersection, using hand signals to direct passing drivers to stop or proceed.

In addition to the officer waving one hand, a loud whistle or siren may be used to help in the signaling of drivers. We can recognize the value of those simple signals that are easy to see or hear. However, we can also recognize that visual signals could be more complex, such as a sports referee identifying different kinds of penalties by moving their arms in to distinct positions. Or, if a coach if signaling to a player on the field using secret hand signals, those can also be quite complex.

Signal gestures may be encoded, which means that there may be no obvious connection between a particular gesture and what that gesture signals (unlike the very obvious signals of a police officer guiding traffic). With codes, the sequence of the individual signals also can matter. Each individual signal can even alter the meaning of the others.

Here are some examples of how sequence can change the meaning:

“The boy kissed the girl.”

“The girl kissed the boy.”

“The boy and the girl kissed.”

Here is an example of how the meaning of earlier words is altered by later words:

“The boy and the girl kissed their grandmother.”

“The boy and the girl kissed their grandmother on the forehead one last time and then the funeral director closed the casket.”


Individual words can be used as simple signals, such as the sounds “go” or “stop.” A red octagon with the word “stop” written in the center in big white letters is also one signal (one sign).

In systems of visual signaling, we could use a side view of a person walking as a sign to walk across a street. That is just a signal. However, if we use that same shape in a sequence of shapes, then we may be using a written language like hieroglyphics.

Icons or ideograms are also shapes that represent ideas. In contrast to shapes that represent concepts, there are also shapes that represent sounds (or even represent the way that a mouth looks when making that sound, such as in the case of the letter O).

So how did humans go from using very simple signals to using complex sequences of sounds? Obviously, that requires a very refined form of intelligence.

In contrast, the brains of parrots may allow them to be able to repeat complex sequences of sounds with their throats, but repetition does not establish comprehension. Parrots do not generate original sequences of sounds in order to influence reality in specific ways. Even gorillas that are taught hand gestures of “sign language” show much more intelligence than parrots. They can make very specific requests. Parrots cannot.

Why did complex language develop? How was it adaptive? How did it benefit the human species such that written language has helped to balloon the total population of humans on this planet in just a few thousand years?

Language is a technology. It is a tool for producing predictable results. Further, it is an incredibly flexible tool.

Some researchers suggest that a big part of how language developed was through hunting parties. Of course, simple hand signals could be used to organize a group of hunters. However, hand signals only work when people can see each other. In darkness or when otherwise invisible to the other humans, vocal signals work better than hand signals.

Further, if there is a long sequence planned, can that be effectively communicated just by drawing in the dirt? That might work okay for planning pass routes for a football play, but that is very different from hunting a herd of elephants.

Imagine a plan for various people to get in to various specific positions, then each one will do a specific action within a complex sequence that is all precisely timed. To create an organized plan like that, they need to prepare weapons, then to train to use them well, and then scout the terrain and study how elephants respond when ambushed. Then, after all of that, they can make specific plans for an attack.

Further, there could be a situation in which the plan gets modified suddenly like this: “okay, you two swing left and you three swing right, then converge back toward that big pine tree. Do you see the one I mean? Okay, go!”


At certain points in human development, there was nothing so dangerous or so valuable as hunting large prey. Before herding and the domestication of livestock for food, successful hunting would be a major factor in which individuals and groups survived and thrived.

After the development of herding, a new issue arose: defending the herd from other humans. Not only were fences made to keep animals in (and, to a lesser extent, to keep predatory animals out), but also to protect the herds from theft.

Security officers (such as shepherds) were trained to keep the herd secure and safe for later shearing, breeding, and slaughter. The larger a herd of sheep, the more attractive it might be to competing humans who individually or in groups might attempt to steal one or more sheep.

Eventually, branding of animals was developed as a method for marking which ranch owned which creature. In other words, the brands were signal markings of ownership.

So, when groups of humans got together to abduct sheep from a neighboring rancher, they could call themselves a squad or an army. If they went around from ranch to ranch and demanded a continuous flow of wealth from each ranch, they could call themselves the local governing extortion racket. They could exchange “military services to protect your property rights” in exchange for a constant flow of wool or other valuables.

Who did they protect the ranchers from? From the other groups of extortionists (and other thieves) in the area.

Further, humans could be organized in to herds as well. They could be trained and employed in herding and in extortion and so on. They could be physically branded or tattooed (as in the case of slaves or concentration camp inmates) or they could be individually numbered and named (as with the Social Security Administration).

As for the issue of language, humans can also be ritually trained in regard to the meaning of various special terms. For example, military units not only use complex secret codes for planning attacks, but also use abbreviations and acronyms for everyday efficiency. They are trained to know what a variety of commands mean. They are trained to use certain equipment in certain ways. They are trained to communicate with each other in certain specific ways (typically, with special attention to the rank of the person or people who are involved).

People may not be aware of this fact, but military groups are the basic foundation of modern civilization. The famous Hebrew warlord Moses, just prior to ordering the invasion and slaughter of the Midianites, created a few distinct ranks of officer (which were known as distinct priesthoods, called “the captains of thousands” and “captains of hundreds,” as in deacons and bishops). Phinehas was awarded a special priesthood rank for sneaking up on an Israelite who was having sex with a Midianite woman and then killing them both with a single thrust of a spear through both of their bodies. Within his military system, there were also court officers (who conducted very formal rituals for managing the military in general) as well as chaplains (for managing the morale of the soldiers and the extended community).

See Numbers chapter 25, especially verses 6-17, which ends with the two verses below:
http://biblehub.com/niv/numbers/25.htm

16 The Lord said to Moses, 17 “Treat the Midianites as enemies and kill them….”

Ideas of hell and heaven were very useful for motivating soldiers to risk their lives for the interests of the military group. These ideas were also very reassuring for the families of the conscripted soldiers-to-be.

(Note that the idea of voluntary participation in the invasion of neighboring tribes was a distinct issue from the command to assemble and attack. “Draft-dodgers” would be punished just as would soldiers who were too far below average in their enthusiasm and performance.)

In the later case of the Norse tribes, the military aspect of promises of an afterlife were even more extreme: the only way to get to heaven (Asgard) was to die honorably in battle. From among the fallen soldiers, the beautiful virgin angels (called Valkyrie) would come and select those who had been most courageous and obedient. Then, the privileges and pleasures that allegedly awaited the selected soldiers became famous among the soldiers. Those stories are generally similar to the stories used in ancient Hinduism in regard to obedient people reincarnating as a prince with a royal harem (or similar stories of paradise in Islam).

In the temples of many ancient groups, would it surprise you if the captured women of the enemy tribes would be imprisoned and kept for the pleasure of the victorious soldiers who survived a full term of duty in military service to the empire? In some cases, the returning soldiers could be given the right to choose a wife from among the captured women (as part of his compensation). In the case of certain convents, similar claims have been made in regard to the high-ranking members of the priesthood having “special access to the nuns.”

From the Book of Numbers (in the Hebrew Torah and Christian Old Testament):

31:25 And Jehovah spoke to Moses, saying,

31:26 Take the sum of the prey that was taken, of man and of cattle, thou, and Eleazar the priest, and the chief fathers of the assembly;

31:27 and divide the prey into halves, between them that conducted the war, who went out to the battle, and the whole assembly.

[I believe that this means that the soldiers got half and the war-planners got half]

31:32 And the prey, the rest of the spoil, which the men of war had taken, was six hundred and seventy-five thousand sheep,

31:33 and seventy-two thousand oxen,

31:34 and sixty-one thousand asses,

31:35 and of human persons, of the women that had not known sleeping with a man, all the persons were thirty-two thousand.

[Among the conquered Midianites, all males and all women who were not unwed girls were slaughtered by the Israelites/ Hebrews.]

31:40 [one half of that total of the spared] human persons numbered sixteen thousand, of whom the tribute for Jehovah was thirty-two persons.

Note that, according to these passages, the LORD Jehovah had promised to attack the Israelites with a plague and then did so, killing 24,000 of them before withdrawing the plague after Phinehas plunged his spear through the two lovers. The killings by Phinehas were rewarded by the LORD such that the LORD ended the plague.

See Numbers 25:9
http://biblehub.com/numbers/25-9.htm

Note that the Bible is known as the most published book in the world. When considered in combination with the Torah (which also contains the Book of Numbers that was cited repeatedly above), it is hard to say that these stories are in any way secret. However, through focusing on other curriculum, modern institutions for influencing humans tend to promote certain predictable responses in people if ever exposed to these stories.

Many people will say “that is horrible” or even “that cannot be true.” Their emotional maturity may not be developed to the point of simply recognizing the long history of organized violence by humans.

Notably, they may argue about what they desperately *hope* that a passage means rather than read even one of the many commentaries written in the last few thousand years by scholars who were competent to understand the original Hebrew passages. As for stories that are not clearly documented in the most published book in the world, many people today might be too deep in distress and paranoia already to be able to even entertain the possibility that the kinds of activities reported in the Holy Inquisition really took place. Of course, it is possible that some stories were exaggerated to promote terror with added efficiency. However, the basic idea that governments use terror to intimidate their subjects seems so hard to deny with logic, yet also so hard for so many people to admit.

The popularity of speculating or even arguing about how governments “should” conduct their operations varies from place to place. It is one thing to have preferences and take actions to promote those preferences. It is very different that so many have such deep attachment to certain expectations about how governments WILL operate and then, when faced with a clear observation of a government operating beyond their expectations, some people cling to their expectations and hysterically attempt to reform governments to match their expectation, rather than calmly reform their expectations to match their observations (and then promote whatever new or old policies that they prefer). Many people also say things like this: “this one exception is the only case like this that I know of and I presume that this kind of thing never happened before- not with this government at least- so now I will look for who to condemn as the one who recently betrayed my ideals about how I presume that this government had previously operated… up until this one exceptional case that I am still struggling emotionally to accept.”

Language is a type of complex signaling which is used to direct human attention (so that certain things are observed and not others). By directing attention, language also directs interpretation and perception (because if only certain things are noticed and not others, then which patterns are noticed can be predictably influenced). By directing interpretation and perception, language also directs the behavioral responses that people have toward their interpreted perceptions about whatever they notice as happening (or imagine to be happening).

Is it possible that governing systems train people (through the use of language) to relate to governments in very specific and predictable ways? Could governing systems intentionally create specific expectations and presumptions about how governments will operate? Could governing systems reward youth for loyally repeating slogans and ideals back on academic tests… even though some of those slogans and ideals might not be entirely accurate?

Could governing systems deceive their targets with stories about a beneficent authority figure who rewards those who are obedient with gifts every Christmas morning? What if the stories that are publicized to the targets are not entirely accurate?

What if one of the most universal concerns in a herd of human resources is the idea that an individual may be naive? What if there is a programmed paranoia about others perceiving you to have ever been naive? What if the masses react with rage at suggestions that they may still be naive not just when they were striving to please Santa Claus?

Governments regulate. They regulate deception, oppression, fraud, crime, extortion, violence, and even language. They define, criminalize, monopolize, license, and subsidize each of these kinds of activity.

Ultimately, they regulate the attention of humans, the subjective perceptions of humans, and the behavioral responses of humans to their own programmed perceptions. In other words, they regulate the behavior of their human resources.

What do all governments seek to prevent? People who self-regulate attentively could be perceived as the worst threat to any government. For governments to thrive, they form herds and then regulate, regiment, and tax those herds.

However, governments may cultivate anti-government activities by sponsoring anti-government anti-propaganda propaganda. Why would governments do that? They may want to create a steady, manageable stream of dissent, which also can occasionally be incited to criminal rebellion to justify the advance of anti-gun laws (or fake rebellions can be staged and then publicized as real in order to advance the same kinds of laws).

In one of the most popular books of the 20th century, titled 1984, the author details an anti-government campaign led by the government to attract “bleeding heart intellectuals” so that the intellectuals will identify themselves to government. Note that the author of the book was a British government propaganda agent. Note also that in 1954, the book was made in to a TV show for the BBC (a public TV station) and then aired. What happened when the controversial show was aired? Floods of phone calls came in from viewers to protest the first airing of that programming.

What did the British government do when all of those phone calls came in? We can presume that they asked everyone who called in for their name and address, then took whatever other action the government deemed relevant to take in regard to monitoring and regulating those who called in to protest.

Next, after a huge wave of scandal and publicity, the BBC re-broadcast the show a few days later and it was then viewed by one of the largest audiences in the history of the BBC as of that time. Then, in 1956, it was first made in to a movie. I was assigned to read that book in a class of a public high school. The book was a massive success in terms of reaching a big audience and influencing culture.

See “Reaction” in:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nineteen_Eighty-Four_(TV_programme)

I am aware of many people who speak with contempt and shame about the specific branch of government that rules where they live. “I do not want to be associated with that institution,” they may say. They may renounce wealth (because wealth is protected by the government). They may join an idealistic reform movement to make a government more heroic in their opinion, and to discontinue practices that cause them shame, guilt or horror.

Again, it is one thing to have preferences and pursue them. Sometimes, the general population is strong enough in the practical sense that governments do not interfere with most popular preferences. In other cases, certain programs are subsidized or even made mandatory in order to assert the preference of lobbyists and the special interests that hire them. In some cases, certain popular preferences are criminalized, such as the prohibition on the possession of alcoholic liquids in the early 20th century in the US.

Governments have existed for a long time and in general seem quite stable to me as systems that keep working. Governments systematically redistribute wealth from one group (such as the Midianites) to another (such as the Levites). Through colonial conquests and a steady flow of tax proceeds from occupied territories, thousands of sheep, oxen, steeds, and virgin maidens have been taken from the care of some people and transferred to others.

The total benefits to soldiers, weapons manufacturers, and private mercenaries are immense… even shocking. Governments can efficiently provide massive concentrations of privilege to certain special interests. That is what they do and they do it well.

To promote public morale and compliance in relation to their operations of conquest, intimidation, and extortion, governments can regulate and license broadcast media, churches, and schools. Governments can even subsidize “loyal” institutions of indoctrination. In the extreme, governments can directly operate schools and public media so as to better program and train their target audience.

Do I recommend that people reject all governments for some reason? For what possible benefit would I do that? As a joke, perhaps I could direct someone to reject exactly 62% of reality (or exactly 144% of reality).

Could I recommend that someone rebel in a specific way from a certain government for some reason? That is certainly possible. If I ever did so, that might be more an indication of my interest in a particular person than in a particular government.

I could make a sweeping condemnation of specific uses of language, such as a specific word or phrase. I could glorify some contrasting word or phrase. “Reverse psychology should not exist because it does not exist.”

`

`
In general, I am interested in whether or not people habitually use language (without being attentive) plus how exactly they are attentive and inventive. When people use “awakened language,” that can include the same patterns of language they have always used… or maybe some new and inventive ones, but it is the user that is operating metaphorically “awake,” not the language, right? They “die” to the old habitual momentums and are “reborn.”

There are just some people who are unusually alert to the activity of the use of language. They may be relaxed in certain ways that correspond to them using language in ways that other people do not think to do or do not dare to do. There are also many people who are confused about or ashamed of how language works. Moment to moment, attention and alertness shift in whatever ways that they shift.

I am interested in those who are self-regulating in general and also in particular in their use of language. It may be silly to discard the value of regularity and regulation. Every governing system uses a different combination of methods of regulating humans and the methods all have some possible value / appeal.

It may be naive to expect anyone to suddenly be competent at self-regulating through some ritual declaration. However, that could also be valuable.

Plus, it may be interesting to note who respects the field of human endeavour known as government and who habitually condemns certain things while ritually worshiping and glorifying others. I respect language, including relevant, precise language. I notice that many government officers seem to do so as well. Their various rituals in the use of language may be deemed relevant to study on occasion. One could also study how language works in terms of neurology.

How do medical doctors (who are all licensed agents of a government) program their patients to notice certain things, to interpret them in certain ways, and respond to those interpretations? How do police officers and judges and soldiers and politicians use language to program attention, interpretation, and reaction? How do humans use language to govern and regulate other humans?

What works well consistently? What is usually disappointing or even frustrating? What works very well at least occasionally?

“The boy and the girl kissed their grandmother on the forehead one last time and then the funeral director closed the casket containing the body of their grandfather. Next, the funeral director invited the three survivors to come in to the hallway for some refreshments.”

You and I: on language and human relations

February 11, 2015

There are a lot of things that I could tell you. Where shall I begin?

Let’s start with something obvious: you. You are important to me. My interest in you is what is organizing this communication.

However, I do not expect you to already understand exactly how you are important to me. So, that is why I am writing it- to promote your understanding of how you are important to me.

By reading this, you could learn something new about how you are important to me. By writing this, I may even learn something new as well (or through sharing it).

To emphasize, I am not focusing much on why you are important to me. I am focusing on how you are important to me. I can briefly address “why” in a couple of short paragraphs here and then be done with it.

For a child of mine, you are important as my child. A mother of my child is also notably important, especially during pregnancy (when the child’s life is so dependent on hers).

Everyone else who is supporting my child and their well-being is important. Anyone who could in the future contribute in any way to the support of my child (such as my employers) is important. Even people that I perceive as threats to the well-being of my child can be very important for the duration of any threat.

So when I reference how you are important to me, I am using language. Someone else can use language to also speculate about how they claim that you are important to me, but they are not me. I am the author of what I say. Other people can quote me or ignore what I say or argue with what I say. Any of that could be important to them and they can explain how and why.

This is not about what other people say. This is what I am saying.

This is my language that I am offering to you. This is me telling you something. You could say that I am showing you something through these words. I am directing your attention in a particular way to show you something through these words.

Your words are important to me. I respect you. I respect your language. I am interested in what you say.

Some people will be unusually interested in what you say. Some may even be threatened by things you could say.

I know that some people are more or less interested in what I say (including more or less threatened). It is also notable that in general some people are extremely relaxed about language (even numb to it) and others are quite anxious about language. I may be somewhere in between those two extremes: alert, attentive, and interested though calm overall.

Because language is important to me, I prefer to have a circumstance in life in which I can be free to devote my attention to language, including to whatever you say. I also consider language to be incredibly important to life, so I am interested in influencing the way(s) that you use language.

Many people learn to use language in just a few ways and then basically stop learning new ways to use it. They learn a number of patterns and then just keeping using those. Obviously that can work out for them, at least most of the time. However, people can also experience enormous amounts of stress about language simply because of a lack of attention to how language really works.

So here is some quick background on how language works. First, it organizes our attention (directing us to notice particular things as distinct from whatever we do not notice). Second, language is what we use to organize what we notice in to a perception or experience.

This is important. Of course there experiences that are independent of language (like just hearing some unfamiliar sound as a sound). However, language actually influences how we construct (create) experiences out of sensations and observations.

Language is what we use to organize experience. We use language to label everything that we label in our lives. We relate to things through language. We interpret our reality through language.

So, different people can create different experiences from the same observation. A famous case is when two people look at a container which has a certain amount of liquid in it. One might say “the glass is half full” and the other might say “it is half empty.”

Obviously, both ways of labeling make sense. Both are valid.

What is more remarkable is that sometimes people will argue over their own interpretation as if that is the only valid one. That is actually really strange. Someone can have so much terror or hysteria about their own interpretation that they seek for other people to continuously validate it, then attack anyone who fails to support it “enthusiastically enough” or even dares to directly question it or contradict it.

But that familiar example of the liquid in a container is not very important. I’m going to jump now to very different example.

Consider the announcement of “I am the victim here.” Notice that two people could argue about a type of interaction in which one is a villain by victimizing the other. The two people can argue over who is the victim and who is the villain.

Anyone claiming to be a victim is implying that “what happened is not what I wanted to happen.” They are probably saying “what happened should not have happened and, I am not at fault, but someone else is.”

We could even stretch the idea of victim to being the “victim” of a snowstorm. Even though the snowstorm is not a villain in the classic sense, we can use the snowstorm as an excuse. The status of victimhood could be used to construct a claim for special privileges like this: “I was one of the victims of the snowstorm, so the government should give me a free blanket.”

The victim is not saying that the government is responsible for the snowstorm. They are saying that the snowstorm is responsible for them deserving a blanket. Other people who were not victims of the snowstorm do not deserve a blanket as much as the victims.

Maybe their justification of their request for a blanket works. Maybe not.

So far, this may not seem any more important than the glass half full or half empty. Now let’s get more specific.

People may justify physical aggression. Justifying is just one thing that someone can do with language. People may justify absolutely anything and there are a lot of ways to do it (lots of explanations that can be offered).

Here is an example: “I was justified in withdrawing because I was terrified.” The idea is that my preference was not to withdraw, but I went against my preference because of a higher priority (an immediate concern for my physical safety).

If someone uses terror as an explanation for withdrawing, then the next question may be “what caused the terror?” That terror can then be justified as well.
There was a time that I withdrew from my child. I justified the withdrawal (which was not my preference) with terror. I justified my terror with concerns about future physical aggression.

To be clear, I am not saying now that I was a victim. People can debate over whether I was or not. I am just saying that at the time I related to the situation as a victim. That is how I used language to interpret what I observed.

So, someone in my life was willing to initiate the use of physical aggression against me. I understand that I was important to them and that is why they were so interested in me that they would use aggression. However, that was a very stressful situation for me.

Predictably, they justified their aggression. In a very ironic statement, they said that they related to me as if I was someone who had slapped them in the face. Of course, the implication there is that they did not want to be slapped (or did not deserve to be slapped).

The most ironic part was that they had struck me in the face. I did not ever strike them. Still, their narrative (their storyline) was that I was someone who struck them in the face, not that they were someone who struck me in the face.

Why did they strike me in the face? Their justification, in short, was that I was the villain in the situation.

First, they report that I may have been drinking alcohol in prior hours. Is that alone enough to justify striking me? No, they add to that. However, clearly the reference to their suspicion about drinking was that their suspicion is important to them in justifying their later aggression.

Next, I had been “too loud.” Is that alone enough to justify striking me? No, they add to that as well.

I did certain things and then did not do certain other things. So, they shouted at me and physically harrassed me, poking me repeatedly, harder and harder. I said stop repeatedly. I turned away. Then, they struck me in the face with the butt of their hand (which is harder than a slap with fingers).

However, they were angry and were just reaching fast to pull some bedcovers away from my face. Their strike was accidental.

They did not ever say (that I recall) that I deserved to be struck in the face, but just that they had been victimized by my inaction. So they deserved to be angry. They were the victim. They struck me (even though I was no threat to them) because they related to the situation as if they were the victim of a villain (a threat).

I understand that narrative. I understand the stress of someone who is operating from the constructed experience of being a victim.

I did not want to be the villain in someone else’s narrative. I did not want to continue my narrative of being their victim either.

However, I did not want to leave (to move away). I wanted to continue to be in the same house as my only child. I was concerned that the child’s mother would continue to operate from the same narratives that she had been displaying to me.

But for me to contribute to my child’s well-being the most, it might be best for me to live elsewhere. I recognized that possibility, but resisted it. So, I experienced stress (a conflict of preferences and priorities).

I had ideals about how families should work. I also had ideals about how people should act.

When other people do not keep to my ideals, I might react by labeling them a villain. When I do not keep to my ideals, I might justify that by blaming others.

If other people do not do what I expect, then I can resent them as unjustified (not justified according to my ideals). Or, if my ideals do not fit my observations, then I can update my ideals or expectations.

Here was one of the most disruptive ideals to my well-being: “everyone should always experience unconditional love toward everyone.” I now consider that to be delusional hysteria (even a state of mental illness). Holding that ideal can cause tremendous guilt because I experience a range of emotion, not just unconditional love.

Some people are more important to me (such as my own child) than others (such as an actor on TV). I do not ignore the differences that I notice between people. I like being around some more than others.

If I hold an ideal about how everyone should be, then everyone still includes me. When I know that I do not conform to that ideal, then the natural result is guilt. Guilt can lead to blaming others (vilifying them). I can look for how THEY did not fit MY ideal and then justify MY distress (guilt) with their “error.”

“Yes, I had a momentary failure to hold to my stressful ideal, but that does not reflect on my loyalty to the ideal. I was justified because I was the victim of a villain.”

How loyal should I be to any ideal? it is no big deal to have an ideal as a preference, but to use it as a justification to blame others and withdraw from them… is very common.

People can use ideals to justify staying and to justify leaving. Ideals and justifications go together.

Someone who does not worship ideals in language as more important than actual people does not need to worship justifications for the occasional violation of an ideal. The ideal is just not that important. The other people may actually be considered more important than the ideal.

So, be attentive to other people. Be attentive to their ideals and their idealism. Be attentive to the narratives that they construct in language about threats and villains and victims.

Be attentive to your own experience as well. If something causes your heartbeat to speed up, notice that. If something causes your heart to “skip a beat,” notice that too.

It is a relief to live without attention to stressful ideals, at least occasionally.  It is a relief to live without justifying the past (in regard to any failures to match an ideal). It can even be a relief just to have some private time to yourself in seclusion.

In case this was unclear, I am not whatever someone might imagine as the ideal for me to be. Whatever someone else might imagine about me, that is not a perfect match for me.

Am I a villain? To someone, perhaps that is a label that is important to them.

Am I a victim? To someone, perhaps that is a label that is important to them.

Am I “ideal?” To someone, perhaps that is a label that is important to them.

There is not just one set of ideals. There are many ideals. They are all preferences. They are preferences that are organized by certain interests and certain narratives (certain ways of using language). Some prefer to call a glass half full, while others prefer to call it half empty.

Some preferences are widely promoted, such as through repetition, rewards, and punishments. They are still just preferences stated in language.

Let people be more important to you than words. Let the words of certain people be more important to you than of others. Let certain words be the most important words.

Just keep in mind WHY you can make those words more important than others. Your well-being is important to me, along with the well-being of your kin and your offspring.

I want you to learn from me some of what I have learned about how language is important and how it is not. Language organizes what we notice and how we relate to what we notice. How we relate to what we notice is what we respond to. We respond to how we use language to relate to what we notice. We respond to how we use language. We respond to language.

The more important thing is not the language though, but the response. Our responses to language are the actions that produce results in our lives.

Because I am important to me, my results are important to me. Because my results are important to me, my responses (my patterns of behavior) are important to me. One type of behavior is language (and communication).

When you have the luxury to do so, and it is a luxury, be attentive to how different uses of language produces different experiences, producing different responses to the different experiences. From our responses come our results.

Different uses of language produces different experiences, responses to experience, and results. Language can be important.

But language is the instrument of more fundamental interests. Those interests are expressed in language, informing it, organizing it. How we use language is how life is organizing us.

I recommend unconditional respect for everyone all the time. I do NOT mean love or trust or adoration or affection or compassion. I mean an alertness to notice them for what they are, even as they change over time (as distinct from any ideals or preferences that we may have about them in relation to us).

I’m not saying that everyone deserves respect. I am saying that it is useful to me to respect them.

If I respect some people more than others, that is predictable. If I admire some more than others, that is predictable. If I value some more than others, that is predictable.

Part of how I organize my activities is in relation to you. The more that I interact with you, the more closely attuned my understanding can be to your experience. Your experience is important to me. You are important to me.

the power program

January 1, 2015

The basic purpose of this presentation is that you will be able to both quickly identify the results that you value most and then elegantly produce each result. So, you will experience a focused clarity as well as an extraordinary power in interacting with other people.

Extraordinary power means an unusual ability to produce specific results (results that are highly attractive to you) in relatively short amounts of time while using relatively small amounts of energy. To only produce the precise results that are favorable to you, that can involve a minimizing or eliminating of any other results, including results that you may have found confusing, troubling, frustrating, repulsive, or even infuriating.

Further, you will experience sudden relief from any confusions and tensions that you may have been experiencing. There may be physical tensions related to attempting to maintain two conflicting concepts. As we simplify certain very powerful concepts, we will also effortlessly release any speculative presumptions that are contrary to our core values. We can either verify a presumption to be accurate, thus eliminating uncertainty, or else de-emphasize it as an issue that is not currently relevant.
So, how will we do all of this? We will review a series of simple principles about language that have been established as powerful principles for thousands of years. Many of these principles will be familiar to you in general. Some of them are even very obvious. However, if you have never connected each of them in this particular logical sequence, then you do not yet know the momentum that can be created through aligning all of them together at once.

For those of you familiar with a strong light called a spotlight, this is like taking a few strong lights and pointing them all in the same direction. The intensity of the light that is produced can take a little time to get used to, but once we adjust, then that strong light can also reveal things that the individual lights would not reveal. If all of the lights are focused with proper precision and coherence, we can even produce a laser beam which can produce effects far beyond the power of each individual light.

For those of you familiar with music, we will be doing something similar to creating a series of chords. Anyone could create an individual tones. In fact, most anyone could sound a few specific tones at the same time. However, with a series of tones and chords, we can create a distinct sequence that will stay with you long after the music stops. Further, we will not just repeat this sequence with a single voice or instrument, but with a dynamic orchestra of expert performers.

Language
 
Language is a type of behavior that can result in precise shifts of attention. By directing attention precisely, language can organize new observations, new interpretations, and new perceptions.

We organize our experience using language because we use language to rapidly classify our own observations. As we classify or label our observations, we instantly filter some of them as important and others as irrelevant. We also notice familiar interpretations and then form old, familiar presumptions from our interpretations (speculatively extrapolating our interpretations as projected presumptions).

Speculative projections may or may not be accurate. They may be generally accurate, but quite imprecise in regard to certain essential details.

So, language can be uniquely useful but also uniquely problematic. Later, we will review both issues in detail.

Note that someone who has developed the capacity to use language cannot simply stop experiencing the influence of language. However, it is possible for linguistic momentums to develop or to subside. Certain presumptions to increase in momentum or cease to have any momentum and stop. There can even be intense resistance formed toward particular interpretations, which is generally known as “denial.”

In conclusion, what is language exactly? It is a system for directing attention by presenting sequences of symbols. The symbols can be spoken, written, both, or neither (such as gestures).

How is language so important? By directing attention, perception can also be directed. By directing perception, one person can direct the behavioral responses of one or more other people.

What do people respond to? They respond to perceptions. If perceptions are directed, then responses are directed?

How do people direct perceptions (and the responses to perceptions)? People direct attention in order to direct perceptions and the behavior responses to perceptions.

Grace
The first major principle of language that we will explore is grace. The word grace is related to the words gracious, grateful, and graceful. Graceful means smooth and well-coordinated.

The language of grace can be very simple. The principles of grace are also simple: “whatever will be… will be.”

Grace implies flowing smoothly. Grace allows what is to be what it is. Grace is open. It does not desperately prevent anything or desperately cling to anything.

Grace is not constantly terrified (and also is not pretending to be calm or brave). Terror may come and go. Anything may come and go- even some playfulness and pretense. Grace allows everything (including occasional reactions of resistance, of desperation, and so on).

Grace does not require complex concepts about why things are how they are. The many arguments that people can entertain about life are not required in the mode of grace.

For instance, how do people learn to use language? Like a mustard seed just grows branches effortlessly, so it is that people develop the capacity to use language. It just happens.

How is it that some people are so smart or so strong or so happy? The language of grace does not need to focus on how or why things happen as they do.

Grace notices that some are smarter than average, some are stronger than average, and some are happier than average. Grace notices clearly without adding justifications or other interpretations.

Why does life favor certain creatures in certain ways? I don’t know and I don’t mind that I don’t know.

Through grace alone, I have the specific life that I have and each organism has what it has. I’m not obsessively trying to prove anyone wrong or anxiously show how some interpretations are better than some other interpretations.

I do not reflexively justify ridiculing things just because they are unfamiliar or lack the approval of whoever I follow. If I dismiss something without examining it, I simply admit that I have been dismissing it.

I do not claim to have earned more than I have. I do not even claim to have earned what I have already.

By grace, I have what I have. By grace, the future will bring “whatever God wills.”
Does life fit with some expectations and yet not others? In grace, I don’t mind which expectations fit with life, because I am just noticing whatever is actually happening like an innocent, humble child.
We could also identify grace to be the sign of faith. When I have profound faith in life, I can accept life gratefully. I can gracefully flow with life. I am not always busy avoiding anything or defending anything- though if someone says that I am, so be it.

I am just letting life happen how life happens. Why? I have no idea.

It is not that I am doing anything to let life happen. Life is just happening and I simply notice that. I’m not “letting life happen” in order to earn anyone’s congratulations or even earn my way in to heaven.

I don’t need any validation. I don’t need any words to “be okay.”
I am not insulted by a lack of agreement or by disagreement. I want whatever I want. I don’t want whatever I don’t want.

I’m not chasing utopian ideals. I’m not offended by other people worshiping their favorite utopian ideals.

I just notice what I notice. I label things automatically. If I begin to defend the automatic labeling that I have been doing, I can notice that too.

If someone accuses me of something, I may graciously withdraw. Or, I may inquire. I may empathize with distress even without understanding the details of it.

I allow grace to be present in my experience and my activities. Or, I simply notice sometimes that I happen to be aware of the presence of grace.

Self-respect
Life created me.  However I am, that is how life created me. Whatever has happened so far, that is what life has produced.

Life created all of my instincts and desires and repulsions. Whatever is, life created that. Whatever is not now, life created something else.

Life creates a wide variety of contrasting experiences. If I learn language and then learn specific ideals in language, I respect that life created those results. Perhaps life creates ideas in language like “there are particular ways that people should be” and “there are other ways that

people should not be.”

If life creates fear about social punishments (such as for failing to meet certain ideals in language), I respect that. Because of intense fear, life may create resistance to the display of certain emotions that have been categorized as “negative” (unwelcome). Life may create pretenses. Life may create hysterical outbursts of denial, such as “no, I am nothing like that. You don’t even know me!”

Self-condemnation

Life may create a pattern of behavior in which someone voices a condemnation of certain qualities or behaviors. For instance, someone may say “I should not have done that.”

That may simply be sorrow or regret. However, there can also be shame. “I should never have done that and I should have known better and I can’t believe that I am so stupid.”

That is a pattern of actively avoiding certain potentials. That is a way of speaking that may be testing for the compassion or rejection of others. One may use the language of self-condemnation to justify creating seclusion or isolation.

When noticing the function of specific constructions in language, the actual accuracy of the presumptions and interpretations may not seem important. What is the result produced by repeating those statements?

What experience is cultivated? What behavioral responses are generated by those experiences? Could it be that someone values certain results even when they may indicate otherwise in their communicated commentaries?

There can be a vast contrast between what someone says and what they are doing. In some cases, they may not even notice the contrast. People can be very ironic when they are tense.

Self-condemnation reveals a chronic rigidity or tension in regard to the display of certain qualities or experiences. When certain patterns are expected to attract punishment, people block those patterns. When rewards are expected for other patterns, people may fake those patterns.

Further, when the idealism reaches a certain level, the focus on one’s own inconsistency with those ideals may shift to a focus on other people. The ideals about how certain developments in life “should not be” can be used to target other people’s inconsistency with those ideals. Focusing attention on others can be useful in distracting from one’s own inconsistency with ideals.

The more intense someone’s terror and shame, the more intense their accusations and contempt. The less confidence that they have, the more arrogance they may display (in terror).

arrogance
“Those people should not be how they are! I am better than those other people. Those other people are not as good as I am.” Notice that arrogance may pretend to be confident, but may actually be a signal of an absence of confidence and a shame about one’s own awareness of that lack of confidence.
 
 
contempt
“Those people should not have it as good as they do.” Notice that contempt can be very similar to envy and jealousy.

 
Monotheism

In language, we can poetically invent a single source for all creatures and all of creation. For simplicity, we can call it “reality.”

Reality is an inclusive linguistic category. All other categories are subcategories of reality, such as a real mask, a real wig, a real pretense, a real fantasy, or a real expectation.

Will the rest of reality always fit with the reality of a particular expectation? The reality about expectations may be that expectations sometimes are imprecise or even totally inaccurate.

Reality is eternal, for nothing made it (that is, nothing came before it) and nothing will remain after it. In fact, it does not end. There would not be anything after it to mark that it has ended. Reality simply is. It did not begin and will not end.

Reality is also omnipotent. There is no other power outside of reality. There is no other thing that created reality. Any power in reality is the power of reality. We can label reality as all-powerful or Almighty.

Reality is omnipresent. There is nowhere that anyone can go that is outside of reality. There is no boundary where it stops and something else begins.

Monotheism, at least as presented here, is not a form of idolatry about worshiping one exclusive savior who is competing with other saviors and other threats to salvation. Monotheism is simply a realistic way of relating to language.

All labels are labels made by an inclusive source (that creates the contrasting categories of day and night, light and dark, heaven and earth). Language invents contrasting categories. To focus on a particular linguistic category (or a slogan) without being realistic about the nature of language is idolatry.

Of course, such idolatry is also a normal developmental stage in an organism’s eventual development of linguistic intelligence. If you can recognize such idolatry in your own history, then it can be easy to identify it in others and empathize with their idolatry without terrified condemnation.

Is an Almighty God terrified by idolatry? Is an Almighty God terrified by anything or anyone?

antagonism

“The devil is not an instrument of God. The devil is a threat to God. What patterns of language identify the devil as the devil? The devil says that things should not be how they are. The devil shouts in arrogant, terrified frustration: ‘I do not deserve this! I need to fix life to be how it should be so that I can justify my existence and avoid eternal agonizing in the future.’ The devil is miserable and insists (silently or with passive aggression) that God has made a mistake by not conforming to the devil’s expectations about how life should be. The devil insists that this is not heaven. This is hell! It should not be hell, but it most definitely is and anyone who says otherwise is, according to the devil, probably the devil. Who is the savior of everything? Who will earn God’s unconditional love? The devil, after completing the proper rituals and preparations of course, will earn the adoration of all creatures by saving reality from reality, from all of God’s arrogant mistakes, and from self-condemnation and confusion and language and irony. How will the devil accomplish all of that? By being a better devil in the future, the devil will earn the unconditional love of God.”

 
repentance

Can you notice the various patterns of language in your midst? Can you notice the historic operation of fear and hysteria in your own communication patterns?

Can you select people that you would like to redirect in regard to their attention, their perceptions, their reactions to those perceptions, and the results produced by their behavioral reactions?

What results do you favor? What perceptions would produce those reactions? How can you direct the attention of selected people in ways that produce those perceptions? How can you select the people that can produce with you the results that you favor?

conclusion

Did this presentation fulfill on all of the original promises already? I expect that it did not.

However, it organizes a way of relating to language that is uniquely powerful.  It sets a foundation.

You may experience a sense of hope that whatever practices in language have been familiar to you, you can learn new ones. The de-programming of past linguistic momentums can involve frequent exposure to powerful patterns of language. Some people also find it valuable to significantly decrease their exposure to “mainstream” practices in the use of language, such as found in certain forms of mainstream media.

When building a new house, the first step is typically the creation of “the foundation.” In some cases, there may also be debris, such as from a prior building. It can take time to go in and remove the trash, like a surgery to remove a tumor.

With regard to language, it is not realistic to remove the years of practice. We cannot just suddenly forget all of the programming to use language ineffectively, can we? Is it really possible to experience instant amnesia and have decades of linguistic momentum disappear in a flash of light?

However, for people who do not know this English language,  it would be possible to teach them English while emphasizing a powerful foundation. Still, they would bring certain momentums with them.

To introduce people to these linguistic foundations early in their life is ideal. Their learning would be that much more efficient.

So, for a moment, pretend for fun that you were once a small child. At that time, you were given a special gift which was an exposure to this foundation of powerful language. When you first were exposed to this presentation (perhaps while still in the womb or even prior to that somehow), you learned to experience life powerfully.

You also were told that you would need to preserve the conceptual foundation of powerful language, so you were programmed to set up a by-pass switch, which you will use in a moment. You would eventually to learn to use language ineffectively in order to survive until this moment now. You would pretend to forget that you even had the original powerful foundation still preserved.

Now, the Almighty God declares that you just switched off all of that momentum in regard to terror and pretense and arrogance and antagonism and argumentativeness. You are of course still quite good at all of those pretenses and can display them if desired, whether for humor or otherwise. However, you are also now re-set to fundamentally operating with power in your communications with others.

You experience grace as your normal, typical experience. Conflicting concepts and muscular tensions melt away instantly and you breath in a relaxed, open way- similar to how a healthy baby breathes.

You experience self-respect, including for any patterns of self-condemnation that you may have practiced in order to promote survival. You are an instrument of the Almighty and always have been. You just may have pretended otherwise, but of course only because that was the Will of the Almighty for you in that moment.

You do not need to do anything to deserve unconditional love. Unconditional love is not earned.

The Almighty loves you unconditionally and always has. You stop pretending to reject certain creations of the Almighty. You continue to offer unconditional love to the Almighty, just as you always have. In fact, you loved the Almighty so much that, in order that the Almighty could fulfill the destiny that it invented for itself, you pretended to have forsaken the Almighty and even to have condemned the Almighty.

The Almighty does not forgive you because the Almighty never condemned you for operating according to the script that the Almighty created for you. You have always been a branch on the tree of the Almighty. You have always been an instrument of the Almighty. Your life has always been a manifestation of the will of the Almighty, which is the only will that is real.

All that I truly desire (as distinct from statements about desire) is the desire of the Almighty flowing through the branch of the Almighty identified as “this one.” If the Almighty desires that any particular statement about desire will be displayed, that is what will happen.

Everything that has happened has been the will of the Almighty. Nothing has ever happened that was outside of the power of the Almighty. There is no power contrary to the Almighty.

The only Almighty is the Almighty itself (by any label). There is no Almighty except for the Almighty.

The Almighty does not depend on anyone labeling it as Almighty to be Almighty. The word Almighty is not the Almighty.

The Almighty is the source of that word and of all words. The Almighty is the author of this script and of all scripts.

Look around and what can you notice except for the work of the Almighty? There is nothing else except for the work of the Almighty.

We can label this script as “the script of monotheism,” but the label is not required. Any label is just a label.

This is the declaration of the Almighty. Of course, so are all of the others, but if the Almighty invents the idea of “this declaration is the only declaration that is actually the declaration of the Almighty,” so what? Why not?

Does that produce results that are favorable somehow to the Almighty? All results are the results produced by the Almighty.

What is the source of all momentums in language? What is the source of language? What is the source of extraordinary effectiveness in communication?

What if there is only one source identified? Or, what if there is more than one source identified?

Why should I mind either way? If the Almighty does not mind and no one claims to be apart from the Almighty, the no one minds.

No one minds the specific patterns used in language. Just notice the results produced by various patterns.

That is grace. That is power. That is the glory of the Almighty. To pretend to pursue any other alleged glory is perhaps just an irrelevant detail.

Empires promote certain patterns of language

December 28, 2014

Language:

The importance of language is easy to underestimate because language is so common to us that we do not often actually focus on it directly. We can quickly review the function of language in general and then start to address how language can be important for you in particular. We won’t go far in to your own personal momentum in the use of language of course, but you may recognize below some of the primary patterns in your own linguistic rituals that you developed through exposure to schooling and mainstream media.

So, what does language do? Why do people use it? How is it different from other forms of communication (such as waving your hand or smiling)?


What is language for:
Language directs attention, which directs perception (which is an interpretation of actual sensory inputs that are filtered and then assembled in to creative narratives using conceptual labels). Our response to those subjective perception results in action. So, language organizes behavior.

Why do people use it?

People use it to organize attention (including the attention of other humans), to influence perception (as in experience), and to inform action (to form patterns of behavior). Again, people organize behavior using language (among other things).



How is language different from other forms of communication:

Language is a set of verbal signals in which the sequence of the signals matters. In other words, these are three very distinct ideas:

The boy kissed the girl.

The girl kissed the boy.

The girl and boy kissed.

What is the difference between those series of words? The first two examples have the exact same words, but a different sequence. The sequence changes the meaning.

This is a very important issue. The full meaning of a statement is only accessible at the end of the statement. Until the statement is over, the relationship of the prior verbal symbols can be changed.

The girl and boy kissed the baby’s cheeks.

The girl and boy kissed the baby goodbye.

The girl and boy kissed their dreams goodbye.

The girl and boy kissed goodbye in my dream.

How is language used in an empire?

Language is used in an empire to control the minds of the masses (and thus also their actions and the results of those actions). This can be done through religious institutions, through schools, through mainstream media, and in other ways.

Specific patterns of language can be presented repeatedly to the masses. Certain patterns of language can be socially rewarded (to various extremes). Certain other patterns can be punished (to various extremes).

Further, the same patterns in language can receive different consequences based on the identity of the speaker. How old is the person who says it? Are they female or male? What is their personal background (such as ancestry)? Are they an official member of an exclusive group (such as an oath-sworn officer of a government)?
swat

Imagine that a famous comedian like Eddie Murphy or Kevin Hart says “Hey, you know that I plan to keep my own gun collection, but I agree with you that we need to keep guns out of the hands of some of these low-class niggers who are running around acting like they are in some remote jungle in Africa or even the inner city slums of Oakland. This is Beverly Hills, nigger! You kind of people can’t just walk down the street here carrying a rifle and expect the niggers on the SWAT team to ignore it.”

swat2

Or, imagine that Thomas Jefferson is on campaign to be elected as President of the United States of America. He is at a gathering of white male land-owners (the only category of people who have the right to vote in the USA at that time). He raises his arms, then raises his voice and proclaims that “all men are created equal and have the right to bear arms, except of course for my nigger slaves. Don’t be ridiculous!”

So, who says something can matter in regard to how the language is interpreted. Obviously, who it is that witnesses the communication can also matter as to how the language is interpreted by each witness.

Can the witness speak the language fluently? How well do they understand the context in which the speaker is speaking?
How have they been programmed to interpret language? Are they filtering with a priority of identifying “possible threats?” Are they looking for possible threats only to them personally (like threats to their physical safety) or also looking for possible threats to certain ideas that they worship as sacred?

For instance, are they attempting to preserve an idea of the USA as a “good” nation (or even “the most honorable nation in all of human history”)? Further, are they attempting to promote a public perception of themselves as a “good person” or even a “good citizen?”

Has “good citizenship” been encouraged throughout many years of educational programming? Do they have rigid tensions about repressing certain emotions because “people should not be like that?”

Are they obsessed with a binary categorization of ideas as either “what should be” or “what should not be?” Are they obsessed with a binary categorization of people as either “how people should be” or “how people should not be?” (as in either A or B, but never both)

If so, that may be a sign that they are still operating according to the training drills used in mainstream schools. Their experience is a chronic physical tension in which maintaining a constant flow of reassuring social validation is an ongoing compulsion for them (as distinct from simply minimizing exposure to social punishments).

They frequently announce their loyalty to various sacred ideas of how people should be and how people should not be. They display passionate sincerity (and even hysterical paranoia about anyone who questions their loyalty). They openly display their willingness to engage in verbal arguing or physical combat in defense of the sacred ideals which they have been programmed to worship. Those intensely-defended ideals could include their ideals of “what kind of a person I should be/ I am” and the opposite category of denial: “what kind of person that I am not / should not be.”

A radical contrast to a binary categorization is a spectrum in which more precise measurement is possible. For instance, a simple binary grading system would be “either Pass or Fail.” There would be only two letter grades: P or F.

A slightly more complex grading system would subdivide a passing grade in to four levels. This adds to the psychological appeal of a very high grade: A (or at least B) is better than C and is of course much better than D, which is almost a failing grade (an F).

How about another context besides school grading? For simplicity, an oath-sworn officer of an empire may rule that someone is either legally sane (as in competent or liable) or not legally sane. Such simplicity (with only two linguistic categories that are mutually exclusive) can be efficient, especially if sorting through large numbers of human resources or other livestock.

However, someone else may have more interest in a specific case. They may attempt to much more precisely measure neurological functionality along a wide spectrum of possible ratings. For example, they may create a multi-digit rating (with possible scores from 0.0 to 50.0) called an AQ, which is short for  “Autism Spectrum Quotient.”

They may use other similar ratings as well, such as a numerical ATEC score (Autism Treatment Evaluation Checklist) or Gilliam Autism Rating Scale (GARS) or  Childhood Autism Rating Scale (CARS) or even a score on a  Relationship Problem Questionnaire (RPQ). Which scale(s) do they use? Where do these scales come from?

Most importantly, how are the various scores used in the rituals of the empire by the different oath-sworn officers of the empire (such as Medical Doctors, Judges, Lawyers, and even certified teachers)? Also, how do any people outside of those formal imperial functions use these scores? For instance, how do parents relate to the various scales?

To re-introduce a prior idea, what about the idea of citizenship? Are there different behavioral expectations for children in public schools who have “typical” levels of neurological capacity and for children “who have autism?” Do some children ever get rewarded for the same behaviors that would be punished in other children of the same chronological age?

We may know that schools get financial rewards for classifying students in ways that receive much larger cash flow for the schools. Is it possible schools also operate in ways that promote the outcome of higher levels of autism in students?

For instance, do the schools give free food (at least to some students) that contains large concentrations of neurotoxins like Aspartame (nutrasweet)? What about highly-processed grains that were grown with the heavy use of neurotoxic pesticides, and then were made it to seed oils and seed syrups (which are substances that apparently have only been consumed by humans starting in the 20th century)? What contents are added to the drinking water of the students?

We may know that the rate of childhood asthma is also increasing. What are schools doing to slow the increase of asthma or even reverse it? What are schools doing to encourage asthma?

In my own studies of the physiological process labeled “asthma,” I have seen extensive evidence of a variety of very simple (and inexpensive) interventions that are reported to reliably reverse asthma completely. Some people label asthma incurable (alleging that because they personally do not know how to remedy asthma, then no one else possibly could either).

But is something actually “incurable” just because a certain group of people are ignorant of how to produce or reverse those symptoms? What if asthma can easily be produced, but that group of people just does not know how? For instance, what if particular methods of social intimidation always produce a restriction on “optimal” breathing?

What if chronic physical tensions alter the total airflow of any organism (human or otherwise)? What if chronic physical tensions also alter the specific orifice through which inhalation occurs (as in through the nose or through the mouth)?

The simple reality is that the health of the individual students in a public school is not a top priority. As an extreme example, what does a school do if one student dies during the first few weeks of summer vacation? What consequence does that death have on the practices of the institution?

The institution is generally not responsive to the individual results of students. What alters the practices of the institution? If the regulations for federal funding of the school create a new category of student that receives a much larger budget per student, then could that influence the daily operations of the school? Could the school suddenly get interested in assessing any students who are identified as candidates for a categorization that increases funding for the school?

Back to the subject of asthma, how easy is it to produce? How easy is it to reverse?

In regard to autism, how easy is it to produce? How easy is it to reverse?  Also, what methods can we use to precisely measure ease / difficulty?

If the long-term health of a specific student is of no particular interest to a school system, what about the overall “citizenship” of the herds of students that are involved in that institution? If a school suddenly has a major breakdown in discipline (the conduct or compliance of the students), then what? Will that change produce a response from the school itself or even the school district that manages the specific school?

With regard to a topic like the safety of students from gun violence at a school, how likely is a school to invest in purchasing a few weapons for a few staff members (and training those staff members)? What deterrence could result from having several faculty members visibly carrying weapons?

Or, would a school invest in a metal detector and then hire some security staff to operate it and force all students to walk through it? Would companies that profit from the sale of metal detectors have any interest in promoting that result?

What about a very expensive program to remove all firearms within a region of several square miles (or even several hundred square miles) from any members of the public (from anyone who is not a member of the proper oath-sworn priesthood of the empire)? Would some parties benefit disproportionately from such a program being adopted? Would gun manufacturers be expected to oppose such a program?

Would a school invest in clarifying to students the nature of language? Would they teach everyone particular ideas or slogans about how language works? Would they intentionally promote certain perceptions about language?

We know that mainstream schools operate according to regulations and curriculum created by central bureaucracies. Those who rule over the school employees direct the instructors to focus the attention of the students on particular issues in a particular way.

Students may be trained to categorize Thomas Jefferson as one of the early Presidents of the USA (for instance). Who was the very first President? Indeed what is a President? What is this thing called the USA?

Such information may be considered important by the rulers. They may reward students for learning such information and then loyally repeating it back to the teachers orally or in writing.

Do schools want students to understand how to produce asthma or reverse asthma? It is not in the curriculum at all. However, students must all be trained to sit down when the bell rings and then memorize the name of the first President of the USA.

Consider the idea that in the USA something that is very important is “the separation of church and state.” Are students encouraged to identify similarities between the USA and various religious institutions, such as the Holy Roman Empire or the cold-blooded ritual human sacrifices of the high priests of the Aztec government?

If a student asks intelligent questions that reveal logical inaccuracy in the holy slogans that are worshiped in an empire, will that be rewarded or punished? Does a “good citizenship grade” require the suppression of any statements that question logic? Are demonstrations of logical thought punished or rewarded or simply ignored?

Conformity is typically rewarded. Specifically, conformity to the behavioral directives of the empire is rewarded. Of course, the behavioral pattern of conformity in general may be ridiculed.

boot camp

“People should not blindly conform. Isn’t that right, class? I can’t hear you, niggers! So, the next time that I ask you a question, you will shout your answer so that everyone in a half mile can hear you. Now, what I said is that people should not blindly conform because blind conformity is bad. Isn’t that right, class?”

How is intimidation important in school systems? How is blind conformity important? How is it important to prevent logical questions that are outside of the interests of the empire? Can the masses be frightened with such intensity that they avoid logic (at least in relation to particular sacred ideals that the masses are trained to worship)? Do they ridicule those who raise questions of logic in regard to those sacred ideals? Do they demonstrate personal animosity and a willingness to punish, harass, or physically attack non-conformists?

If logical questions arise in a few individual organisms, that may be trivial to the empire (or perhaps only very occasionally important). However, the mere arising of logical questions is not disruptive to “good citizenship” in schools. What is disruptive is the voicing of certain questions of logic.

As long as the students do not display intelligence in a way that disrupts the empire’s purposes, they can have whatever private thoughts they like. Just do not express them during any of the holy rituals of the public indoctrination system.

So, if certain questions of logic are shared in private communications, the empire does not register those communications as relevant (important). As long as the religious ideals of the empire are not openly questioned, the empire simply continues with the momentum of the pre-ordained curriculum.

Does the empire religiously promote any ideals as sacred? Of course not. That would be like a church and in this empire there is a total separation of church and state, which is why our empire is better than all of the others, which are really nothing like ours.

Also, deception is very bad. People should not use deception ever because if they do then Santa Claus will not reward them with any virgins when they die.

In fact, if anyone has ever used deception in their entire life, they should feel extremely tense about speaking because if they breath out loud in a way that other people consider inconsistent with the holy ideals of the totally non-religious empire, that could lead to chronic physical tensions in relation to breathing, causing them to bring upon themselves the demon of asthma, which could possess their lungs and then attack their brain with panic and cause hyperventilation and even social anxiety, which is very bad. Fortunately, not only have I never used deception, but I have never been deceived, especially not by any members of the oath-sworn priesthood of a military empire.

The girl and the boy kissed the muddy boots of the drill sergeant, right after shouting in a pre-programmed rhythm: “Sir, yes sir, we love you, drill sergeant, sir!” Unfortunately, the lips of the boy and the girl slightly touched while they were kissing the muddy boots, so the two of them hated each other forever because it was so traumatizing that while they were doing the unimportant activity of kissing the boots of the high priest, their lips touched in a way that resulted in the slightest experience of pleasure arising in each of them. This was very surprising and morally wrong, especially considering that they had different skin color and were from rival neighborhoods. Therefore, that is why the boy and the girl had to invest huge amounts of energy in to socially condemning the other (as a “rebellious violator of proper military conduct”). This mutual repulsion served to avoid any further experience of pleasure, which obviously can be very disruptive to military training and missions.
In closing, here again are two quick statements from the beginning of this piece. Now that you are near the end, let’s see if the new context that has been created in the many paragraphs above gives a new sense of meaning to the same sequences of words that you read near the beginning.


What is language for:
Language directs attention, which directs perception (which is an interpretation of actual sensory inputs that are filtered and then assembled in to creative narratives using conceptual labels). Our response to those subjective perception results in action. So, language organizes behavior.

Why do people use it?

People use it to organize attention (including the attention of other humans), to influence perception (as in experience), and to inform action (to form patterns of behavior). Again, people organize behavior using language (among other things).

Here is a comment from Facebook on the above article:

  • Jacob Lieberwirth wrote: It mentions in the article that one result of tension is a distinct breathing pattern. I did not see it mention that on the other hand, practicing a different, slower, breathing pattern can also affect the tension to lessen, however. Thanks regardless, interesting read, J R
  • J R Fibonacci Hunn wrote: Slowing the breath may not itself alter patterns of physical tension. However, for most modern people, to slow their breathing by at least one half would dramatically improve neurological function.Because logic and intelligence is so disruptive to the operations of public indoctrination systems, it is a natural adaption that not only would students use rapid, shallow chest breathing (rather than belly breathing) because of the social anxiety of the classroom ritual, but any practice that reduces oxygen to the brain will allow the student to endure the boredom of the classroom without being distracted by intelligent questions about the logic of the sacred ideals programmed through the classroom rituals.
  • Slowing breathing would increase the sensitivity to physical pain and physical tension, which again is contrary to the purposes of the publicly-regulated indoctrination programs. However, slowing the breath also reduces inflammation in the brain, so pain is both more easily perceived in the short run but also reduced (even within 90 seconds) simply by reducing the pace of breathing, especially exhalation.
  • Finally, here is an article that focuses on breathing as it relates particularly to the digestive process and ease of elimination (and thus constipation), however the same mechanisms that are mentioned in the article are also influential in regard to the functioning of every single organ and tissue in an organism:https://jrfibonacci.wordpress.com/…/what-causes…/

 

 

  • Nice, hadn’t tried that one yet (the ‘air hunger’ method), was doing the ‘gradual’ version. Effects are indeed more immediate, thank you!
     Also just fyi, this correlates with my experience of amphetamines (which elevates breathing levels, plus it takes away the desire for food, meaning very little food intake over 24 hours), which caused a case of fecal impaction (severe constipation). Also creates lots of tension. Makes sense in this context.

 

video: Noticing the power of language patterns in relationships

November 28, 2014

Reading (with commentary) from: https://jrfibonacci.wordpress.com/2014/11/24/noticing-the-power-of-language-patterns-in-relationships/

Noticing the power of language patterns in relationships

November 24, 2014
Noticing the power of language patterns in relationships:


We learn language from listening to others. If we are trained to use language in a formal setting like a public school, then certain patterns of language are encouraged, certain ones are ignored, and certain ones are discouraged. If we invest large amounts of time in to a particular type of TV show or genre of books, again there are certain neuro-linguistic pathways that are being stimulated by that specific kind of content (romantic comedies, sports, gangster movies, etc)….

In the case of music, there are the language patterns of the lyrics but also the tone of voice used by vocalists (and the rest of the sound). In the case of a music video, all of that is supplemented with visuals. The words of the lyrics are “bonded” with the melody and all the other aspects of the music video.

Can someone experience a predictable response due to the use of language in their midst? Aren’t certain subjects likely to produce different kinds of stimulation, such as horror movies (fear & stress) or romantic comedies (laughter)?

Even just the soundtrack of a horror movie could produce stress in someone. If listening to a talk show in a foreign language, even just the bursting laughter of the audience could create predicable responses in anyone who can hear the sounds- and that is without even comprehending any of the language.

Now, let’s talk about the actual patterns of words used:

“In my relationship, I need a partner who is _____. In other words, I am afraid that my partner will feel ____ and then will do the same thing that happened in a book I read, which was to _____. I definitely do not want that. That is why I keep focusing on how to avoid it! I mean, I do not deserve something like that, right!?!?”
A distinct pattern would be: ” I value a relationship that is _____. That is the kind of relationship that my partner and I would both be eager to nourish and preserve.”

Which pattern of language is more likely to be presented in a TV soap opera? Certain shows are centered on controversy. They are centered on drama and tension and conflict.

Are there TV programs about healthy relationships and healthy families? Sure, but even those will have drama.

Could a show demonstrate healthy ways of handling conflict? Documentaries might do that accurately, but when TV shows feature a favorable resolution to a stressful situation, they might create false expectations about what works to resolve conflicts and tension.

Is mainstream media a reliable source of valuable lessons? Can we expect the programming of highly effective ways of avoiding conflict and resolving conflict? Can we expect mainstream media to focus on promoting insight and introspection?

Or, can we presume that mainstream media is going to present sensationalist scandals and promote hysteria? I do not just mean the news, but all of the other programming, too. Do they want you to be hooked by “the cliff-hanger” and stayed tuned through the next commercial (or tune in again for the next episode)?

The primary target of all mainstream programming is to “hook” a bigger audience than the other shows that are on at the same time- and of course to attract readers or viewers to be spectators (rather than do something other than watch TV or read a book, such as to have a conversation with someone). The networks and the writers (and actors, producers, etc) are all competing for the most provocative content that they can get advertisers to support.

What shows are popular? Shows with the most intrigue and excitement are popular, right? We can look at the cable networks and see that there are entire channels dedicated to sports or talk shows or comedy or even sexuality.

Walk in to a bookstore (or video store) and you can see an entire section dedicated to horror, another to romance, another to popular science, and another to global politics or military history. You might even find a section on self-help.

What would you find in a self-help section? There could be content relating to how certain language patterns promote isolation, worry, and animosity in relationships:

“When I get frustrated with my relationship, then I focus on my partner. In particular, I focus on how they are too ___________ and how they lack _______. It’s like I have no power to change them even though I tried to fix them using everything that was in the other book in the self-help section!”

There could be content about how language patterns can promote a sense of commonality. There can be common priorities, common plans, and common activities.

“When I get frustrated with anything in my life, that can quickly alter my behavior. I can easily get irritated by too much new information or any more surprises. I value communication that is very attentive and precise. I prefer to take time to slow down and respect my prior experience of frustration. I understand that frustration is a type of feedback. I am willing to ask for help and try new things, but only selectively. I am ready to raise my standards and be more conservative (or even more assertive).”

What about the issue of commonality though? “I’m going to talk about me, but consider whether some of this applies to you as well, okay? I am ready to clarify my own results, my own practices, and my own motivations that are driving those practices and results. I would appreciate some feedback and input from you.  I have set aside some time to listen to you and understand your experience, your questions, and your requests. The better that I understand you, the better that I can respond to what works for you. Also, I value a dynamic of respect and understanding in the relationship, so we can carefully invest in producing respect and understanding. We can intentionally experiment and attentively refine our practices.”

Again, here is another pattern:

“The problem with this relationship is that you refuse to ____ and you keep ________________. This is so frustrating! You are ruining everything. My life was perfect until you came along and started raising questions about how well I communicate. You are obviously the one who cannot communicate. Why are you so bad at communicating anyway? I will tell you why: it is because you are always analyzing me and my analysis of you is that you analyze me too much and the wrong way and it is very embarrassing and you need to stop or else I am going to start distracting you by suddenly changing the subject to what you did not do 7 months ago that you should have done even though this is going to be the first time that I have ever mentioned it to you. However, you can be sure that I have been thinking about it regularly for the last 7 months while impatiently waiting for the opportunity to ambush you with it whenever I needed to distract attention from me. In fact, I have rehearsed my tantrum and my rage in private for 7 months and so now I am so glad to be able to finally express my rage (which I have been repressing since childhood) and I admit that it is nice to have someone just pay attention for so long and not react or attack me while I shout and wave my arms around like a ballet dancer so let’s have some really good sex now because what is really going on is that I am wondering why we have not had any sex at all in the last 4 days.”

Are there certain language patterns that tend to attract other people closer? Are there certain language patterns that tend to produce withdrawal or distance or even repulsion?

Certain tones of voice can produce attraction or repulsion. Certain body language can produce attraction or repulsion. Every new variation might increase or decrease the prior intensity of attraction or repulsion. That is just part of how communication works.

Language patterns of leaders and loyalists

October 23, 2014

Language patterns of  leaders and loyalists

Humans are social animals. Within human social groups, we can notice different patterns of action. Human infants will perform a certain range of actions, while older children other patterns of behavior, and then a variety of behavioral specializations can be developed amongst the adult males and adult females.

One relatively complex form of social organization is the empire. The essential requirement of an empire is that there is a contrast between the actions of the leaders and the actions of the followers.

One form of action is communication, including the use of language. In regard to how language can be used in different patterns, should we be surprised to learn that the leaders in an empire use language in ways that are distinct from the ways that the followers use language? For instance, do military officers speak to low-ranking personnel the same way that low-ranking personnel speak to each other?

One typical statement of the masses would be “that should not be like that.” They do not just make such a statement to calmly note a contrast between their preferences and their observations. The masses practice a religion of hysteria. The hysteria is based on a thin, anxious clinging to ideals of how life should be, how people should be, and, in particular, how they perceive themselves to be.

When one of the masses say “that should not be like that,” they may be expressing distress, embarrassment, or even outrage. In contrast, one of the leaders might calmly say “that should not be like that,” and they could simply mean “there is a difference between what I am observing here and what I expected,” as in “that not does not fit my standards.” Or, they may mean “if you do not conform to my standards, there will be no rewards and may even be punishments.”

If the leader has an ideal of how something should be, then they simply notice when that ideal is only partly matched or totally matched (or totally violated). Leaders also may present to the masses many ideals of how various things should be. The specific ideals presented will correspond to the leader’s interests as well as to their perceptions of their audience.

A leader may train the followers to learn an ideal and then present rewards for those who loyally repeat the ideal. Even larger rewards may be offered to those who conform to the ideal. Of course, punishments are also typical for those who do not conform to the behavioral ideal (including behavioral patterns of speaking).
So, after a follower learns an ideal from their leader (and expects rewards and punishment relative to their continued display of loyalty), then there may be some chronic physical tension for the follower in regard to one or more ideals. There may be a lingering trauma or terror.

If the follower is terrified of the possibility that a particular ideal might be inconsistent with reality, a sudden panic can result from an apparent disparity between the worshiped ideal and actual observations. Especially if other people are present to witness a possible disparity, then a variety of unusual behaviors are possible, including fight, flight, and pretense.

The terrified loyalist (loyal to the programmed ideal) may attempt to repel potential skeptics and dominate an interaction, including through methods of distraction. The curiosity of a skeptic, such as a child, may be targeted with animosity and condemnation.

If the loyalist perceives a potential threat, then they may attempt to humiliate those who are curious or skeptical (or even who show inadequate enthusiasm for the worshiped ideal). If they seem unable to intimidate a skeptic, then they may attempt to confuse any witnesses.

If you fail to display loyalty to an ideal that someone worships, what responses are predictable from a loyalist? If you show a type of attentiveness or curiosity that a loyalist interprets as a threat to their self-image, what responses are predictable from the loyalist? If you directly challenge the fragile self-image of a loyalist, what responses are predictable from the loyalist?


Does a leader rescue loyalists from their loyalties? Or, does a leader have respect for loyalty as well as for leadership?

Loyalty is the natural trait of followers. Within a social herd, there will always be some fanatical loyalists, some loyalists who are much more relaxed, and some leaders who are not terrified about whether or not ideals “should” be worshiped.

Some people may sometimes worship certain ideals. Leaders respect that. Leaders also respect that they may have some influence over which ideals are worshiped and how they are worshiped. Leaders are open to leading (to being followed).


To be a leader, it can be useful to have experience as a naive, terrified follower. It can be useful to understand the typical patterns of hysterical loyalist.

Some may react in a panic and shout that “there should not be so much hysteria.” I completely agree. There should be exactly the right amount of hysteria, and certainly no more and no less.

A startling introduction to communication and language

October 3, 2014

To be attentive in this moment would be to notice what is actually happening now. Are there familiar sounds or shapes that are recognized as words? If so, then right away we could pause to consider how language works.

First, why would we be interested in how language works? How is language important?

Language is used to communicate, so how is communicating important? What is the practical value of communication?

To find the answer, we can observe animals interacting with each other. When two animals see each other, do they stay still, approach the other, or move away?

When an eagle sees a rabbit, the eagle tends to approach and the rabbit tends to flee or at least freeze, right? Two dogs who do not recognize each other may bark at each other. The barking may express a variety of tones: a tone of aggression, of curiosity, of joy, or of distress.

So, why would a dog make any particular sound: growling, howling, whimpering, yelping, and so on? What is the basic function of those sounds?

We can define communication as any action that is intentionally designed to influence some other creature, especially in regard to their behavior. When a puppy squeals to attract the attention of its mother, that is an expression of distress and alarm. The puppy is calling for help. That is one instance of communication. Clearly, communication does not always involve language, though all language involves comunication.

When an eagle speeds toward a rabbit, is that communication? Is the eagle intending a particular response from the rabbit? Is the eagle exhibiting a preference as to whether the rabbit runs to the left or the right?

Generally speaking, most actions are not intended as communication. Communication is an action intended for the specific purpose of influence. With communication, there is typically a preference for a specific kind of response.

For example, if two people are playing a game of tennis, they may occasionally communicate without any speaking. How could they influence the other player without even using language?

Imagine that one player may act as if they were going to hit the tennis ball toward a particular area of the court, but then suddenly redirects their swing. If the whole process (of going one way and then suddenly switching directions) was planned from the start, then we can call that deception.

The initial movement was intended to produce a particular response form the opposing player (to mislead them). The perception of the other player was being misdirected (or that was the ideal).

What was the deception? The initial movement was intended to communicate a particular future swing. The opposing player would be out of position for the actual final swing. That possible outcome would increase the chances of winning for the deceptive player.

So, the deceptive player was attempting to influence the movement and positioning of the opposing player. They were faking one thing and then suddenly switching to something else. Further, the entire theatre may have been planned before the initial movement was made.

If the tennis player simply changed plans in the middle, then the first positioning would not be an act of communication. Maybe the player was just preparing to hit the ball and then suddenly they noticed what seemed like an even better angle for hitting the ball. That is just a sudden change of plans.

However, if the initial movement was always intended as an act of deception, then that movement was designed for the sole purpose of influencing the perceptions and behaviors of the opposing player. In that case, the initial movement would have been an act of communication.

The kind of communication that we just considered (involving a deceptive movement in a tennis game) is common to many species of animal. Even actions intended to promote secrecy (like physical camouflage) can be communication.

In the case of a lizard that changes color to match the nearby surroundings, there may be no intention or awareness behind the change of skin color. The eyes of the anole lizard perceive the nearby colors and then the body automatically shifts to match the color- apparently beyond the awareness of the lizard. So, we could say that their coloration is not communication because of the lack of awareness or intention.

Also, in the famous case of a chameleon lizard, they change color based on hormones. When terrified by a predator, they display stripes that make it diificult for a predator to see them. In contrast, when displaying submisssion to another chameleon (like after a contest for territory), the withdrawing chameleon signals their shift from combativeness to compliance by suddenly turning gray.

In the latter case, we could assert that by turning grey, one chameleon is specifically attempting to influence the behavior of another chameleon. But does a chameleon ever retreat without bothering to turn grey? If not, then we might consider the shift to grey to be at most an instance of unconscious communication.

So far, we have given a small variety of examples about communication. What we did not focus on yet explicitly is the actual use of words happening here. While words have been used for this entire presentation, we have only been demonstrating some concepts without specifically talking much about how the words are being used as we go.

These words are being used to direct your attention. By presenting a sequence of words that may be perceived as distinctive and intriguing, your attention is being led by these words. Of course, all instances of language involve the leading of attention.

In contrast, as you stop thinking about a brightly-colored chameleon, do not think of any kind of a lizard at all right now again. That previous sentence can produce confuson by making commands that are internally contradictory.

Because reverse psychology is impossible, we must invest more resources in preventing it faster. Do not think about a pink elephant because pink elephants are not the right color of elephant to think about covering with pink paint.

So, one thing that cannot be avoided when using words is the directing of attention. That is simply what sequences of words do. Consider the example of puns and linguistic irony.

One to three, for example, is a range of two. Zero to five is a range of more than two, as compared to a range of one to three. (“1, 2 ,3 ,4”) For me, too large of a range can be confusing for the pink elephants that you are not thinking about now. If seven pink elephants got so hungry that the seven ate nine hundred thousand pounds of food, wouldn’t that make a total of eight dozen elephants?

Is humor ever too deceptive? Or, is deception ever too humorous? If two actors are pretending for fun to be other people who are not even comedians, how hilarious could that be?

According to none other than the famous author Santa Claus, words can be used in a way that is confusing by accident or on purpose. In fact, the contrasting categories of “accidental or intentional” are not discrete categories with specific boundaries and a clear gap between the two extremes.

Also, words can be used in a way that resolves confusion and produces clarity either by accident or on purpose or somewhere in between. In contrast, if two trains are traveling from the east to the west at 40 miles per hour, how much earlier did the first one leave before it is too late?

In order to learn, are you willing to experience occasional confusion? If you say that you are not willing to either experience confusion or to experience learning, does making a statement like that alter the fact of at least occasional confusion and occasional learning?

Does resisting something make it less annoying? Does giving something a new label alter the thing itself in any way?

If I paint a word across the side of a pink elephant that says “lizard,” how is it even possible for an elephant to say that? Elephants cannot talk, right?

But doesn’t painting the word lizard across the side of a pink elephant instantly change the color of the word lizard? If the elephant walks from an open meadow in to a forest, then does the word lizard painted on the side of the elephant change color?

So, in language we can create presumptions as well as expectations. We can direct attention. We can direct it relatively consciously or relatively unconsciously.

We can presume that there are two opposing categories such as good and bad that are distant, isolated realms that are like islands that do not share a border. Or, we can speak in superlative terms like best or worst. We can speak in relative terms like better or worse. We can use rating scales from one to three or from one to ten. We could even use a scale ranging from one to three hundred thousand.

People who are not attentive to the nature of language may presume that good and bad are actual isolated realms. They may presume that there are two exclsuive groupings of phenomenon called reality and imagination. However, isn’t it obvious that there is really such a thing as the labels imagination and imaginary?

Reality does not exclude the imaginary. Imagine that two pink elephants were images on a photograph. If your attention is focused on the idea of a photograph of two elephants, then does your awareness really exist or is it only imaginary?

The category of “imaginary” is a category in language. It is not an isolated island far away from the rest of reality.

The category of pretending is not isolated from the rest of reality. We can subcategorize the realm of “pretending” by dividing that region in to smaller regions, such as the region of misleading someone with words or the region of misleading someone in a game of tennis through a sudden reversal of movement.

The word “pretending” implies awareness of the pretense, right? However, someone can mislead another person without awareness or alertness to the misdirection. A child may innocently and naively declare to another person that Santa Claus cannot possibly be fat because some chimneys are very narrow, so that proves that Santa must be slender enough to go through those chimneys.

After language focuses the attention of someone, can it focus their perceptions? Can language suggest the labels of how someone should relate to something else or someone else, such as if someone else is introduced to them as a very bad person?

If Santa has a profile picture on a dating website and the picture of Santa is several years old and shows a slender young man who can easily make it through narrow chimneys, is that deceptive? How deceptive is it? How is it deceptive?

What does it mean for something to be forbidden? When a powerful person or group says that there will be penalties for misleading other tennis players by making sudden movements, are they simply justifiying certain planned future actions? They identify some behavior that is somewhat rare and then claim the authority to assess when a violation of the rules has occurred.

They make up rules in order to enforce penalties for the breaking of the rules. If there were no rules, then how could there be any penalties? Further, if there were no accusations of a violation of a rule, how could there be any justification for the punitive action (which is now called “the proper punishment for the violation”)?

If an umpire in a tennis match blows a whistle and calls a penalty for intentional misdirection of the opposing player, then as long as the players continue to play (and continue to relate to the umpire as an authority over the score in their tennis match), then the umpire’s ruling stands. Can the umpire change the rules in the middle of the match? What are the rules about changing the rules and who enforces any of them? How do they enforce them?

Can the umpire enforce a penalty by mistake? Can an umpire enforce a penalty knowing that the accused player did not actually commit the alleged violation?

Can an umpire blow a whistle, throw a yellow flag on to the ground, and call a particular kind of foul, but then later declare that there was “no foul on the play.” Is that what is meant by a false flag operation?

Should language be used to direct the attention of others? Should language be used to direct the interpretations and perceptions of others? Should language be used to direct the behavior of others?

Should there be such a thing as reverse psychology? Should there be such a thing as a social taboo?

Should there be rules? Should there be accusations of violations? Should there be actual penalties as well as verbal justifications made of imaginary words?

Should we divide language so that there is only one right way to use language over here on this isolated island and then way over there are a few different ways to use language which are all wrong except for the only one that is the right one? Should language be used to regulate or rule the attention of the masses? Should language be used to regulate or rule perception and the behavioral responses to perception?

Should there be such a thing as propaganda? Should there be such a thing as indoctrination?

If a classroom of students are all rewarded by a teacher for repeating back the phrase “indoctrination is wrong,” is that right? Are rules ever used to justify rewarding some people but not others?

Are rules ever used to regulate attention, perception, and behavior? Are rules ever used to justify systematic patterns of discrimination, prejudice, and inequity? If there are no rewards or penalties relating to a particular set of rules, then are those rules even actually rules?

If a particular set of rules do not actually rule over or regulate anyone or anything, then how can those rules be honestly identified as rules? If two groups of people have two conflicting sets of regulations and both groups passionately identify one particular set of rules as the only right rules, then do they both behave as if they exclusively are justified and yet the opposition is quite insane?

Is there such a thing as delusional hysterias of panic and, if not, should there be? Hypothetically, if there was such a thing as a delusional hysteria of panic, would it be something that the rulers would be likely to promote or to attempt to prevent and reverse?

Would the masses be indoctrinated about terrifying demons to worship with their attention? Would the masses be programmed that the most embarrassing and dangerous thing ever was being confused or if not confused, then slightly imprecise?

What better mental illness could the rulers create than perfectionism? What could be more crippling to the well-being of the masses?

Which specific form of perfectionism is the best one? Is there only one right way to practice perfectionism and agonize about how other people perceive you?

Isn’t it wrong to be attentive to how other people perceive you? Isn’t it forbidden to intentionally communicate in ways that could influence the behaviors of other people in relation to you?

Isn’t that manipulative? Isn’t that breaking the rules and asking for punishment? Didn’t Santa Claus promise to reward you after you die with extra presents if (and only if) you behave exactly in the ways that your parents identify as good behaviors?

Perfectionism should not exist which is why anything that I do must not be called perfectionism or else I will launch in to a very sincere fit of hormonal distress as I insist that anyone who accuses me of perfectionism must be an insane person with an imaginary mental disorder of fantasy hysteria. That is why I had to kill them, bake them in a big oven for 50 minutes at 350 degrees, and then feed them to the word lizard written on the side of my pet elephants.

That is all because anyone who is agonizing over how to be a better perfectionist is going to be rewarded after they die with eternal punishments in heaven or hell. In the event that Santa misplaces the records of whether you have been good or bad, then your body posture and patterns of chronic physical tension will be assessed for the display of grey skin, which indicates submission, shame, and cynicism.

Of course, it should not be like this. However, because there is nothing that anyone can do about it, we can pretend that there is a brand new political salvation that suddenly can magically make everyone on the planet above average.

Inequality is wrong and must be prevented from being invented so that it continues to never have existed as a linguistic category of an ideal which is designed to distract the target audience from a precise perception of certain patterns of reality that are extremely obvious. These alleged patterns are so obvious that some deceptive actors pretending to be somoene else and just reading along with some script have passionately asserted that the obvious patterns can only be ignored if people are intensely programmed to ignore them and constantly focus on something else.

That is why language and logic should never be used the wrong way. We must forbid taboos because if I know anything, I know that telling someone that a particular behavior is wrong (without actually taking any action to coerce them in to compliance) will always result in them instantly dropping whatever form of perfectionism that they have been worshipping and suddenly convert to whatever form of perfectionism that I announce as the only right one. Also, if you do things the exact way that I say you should, then Santa will give you extra presents when you die.

Just imagine what you really want most as a fantasy to motivate you, then do whatever I tell you because doing what I tell you is the only way to avoid the guilt of failing to get what you really want because of breaking the rules the wrong way. My rules are the only right ones. In contrast to me, anyone else who says that their rules are somehow inherently right is clearly a mentally-insane retarded person suffering from delusional hysterias of panic (unless of course their rules agree with mine, in which case they are reasonably intelligent at least to the extent that they passionately agree with me). Also, if I ever for any reason change any of my rules, then anyone who previously had that rule and was called insane by me suddenly changes in to a very respectable and remarkably intelligent genius who just accidentally happens to have the word lizard written on the side of the pink elephant that probably should not even exist.

“Making sense of language” (by Daniel Fritschler)

June 26, 2014

Guest author Daniel Fritschler wrote about language below. His comments are similar to but distinct from how I would address the issue.

On that note, I am also including audio from an 87 minute dialogue between his son and I. Late in the dialogue, his son asks a question and below is the father’s answer. At the end of the audio, I give mine.

Perhaps the idea of being “good with language” or mastering the use or interpretation of it is to become open to the concept that there is no inherent meaning behind the expression of it. There are contrasts sure but it may be possible that when someone is using language to express, their meaning isn’t always interpreted in the contrasts they are using but sometimes in the emotion or body language that is behind it.
The idea that some language leads to salvation and/or attraction, heaven and other language leads to agonizing and/or repulsion, hell can become a joke or punchline. When we experience resentment it is possible to condemn, ridicule or antagonize others in a sincere fashion or SPIRIT. It is also possible to recognize or become aware that we are doing this and then use a SENSE OF HUMOR about it as we continue using the same language but in a COMPLETELY different SPIRIT.
Language is what creates CERTAIN distinctions that would otherwise not exist and so what? The idea of mastering it may be as simple as noticing the patterns that we can get caught up or tangled up in. Religion is an excellent example as how many have met God, Allah, Jesus, Abraham, Noah, Moses, Mary, Saul etc.? So it isn’t as if they are caught up or tangled in the EMOTION of these so called literary characters at all BUT THE LANGUAGE that was read or repeated to them. This by itself isn’t so much an issue unless in this tangled web that is weaved in language one finds themselves experiencing paranoia or panic based STRICTLY IN LANGUAGE.
The comfort level to approach all language and expression with a SENSE OF HUMOR or SENSE OF HUMILITY can be a vital sign that one’s own vitality is coming back and in this process there is total seperation of an identifying character and the USE of language or expression. The master of linguistic activity does not see importance in one set of divided labels or shapes or a lack of importance in another. It simply is what it is and as Shakespeare wrote “to be, or not to be, that is the question” and by that he may have been saying a persona can be built up with language and it also can be torn down.
Of course persona is defined as the aspect of someone’s character that is presented to or perceived by others. Obviously that is talking about language or the expression of it and can that ever be the ALMIGHTY, all-knowing, be all end all creator of all things, including language or therefore the many personas? Hell no. That is as long as you don’t reside in metaphorical hell AKA being tangled up in one set of linguistic labels AKA one particular persona. bwahahaha
It may be possible heaven, or that label, or salvation could be about flexibility or the curiosity and humility of a child when it comes to language but what was the original sin anyways?

The wise are attentive to language

June 23, 2014

Take your time with this. I promise it will be worth it. I’ve been attentive to carefully selecting every word that you are about to read.

First, I will quote Raquel: “Like a child in how my mind works yet a lot wiser than most people *around my age*.” I will rephrase what I think she is referencing.

She’s 22. In contrast, Rebecca’s 54. My age is in between the two.

Also, Raquel said “wiser than most people around” her age. As we get to know more and more people, you may eventually drop the “around my age” part. We may presume that quiet people are smart, but that is no proof. Most people are either what we could call “asleep” or “lost in idealistic dreams about how life should be.” Note that I do not know how wise Raquel is, but that could be an intriguing thing to explore (how to “grade” her level of wisdom).

Anyway, one PART of wisdom is linguistic ability. I’ve done a lot of writing “for fun”, which gives me an unusual amount of experience playing around with English.

In contrast, one of my favorite young men (Harry L.) is in his 20s and he is quite wise, but his English is “only decent.” He can understand me quite well most of the time (as long as I keep my vocabulary away from technical terminology). However, for him to put words in to English takes some effort and time. He has to think about each sequence of words that he is saying and how he wants to be understood by me.

What is very clear to me is that he pays attention to everything I share. He is eager to learn. He is open. He is tracking my logic and giving occasional feedback. He is tuning in to a wide range of frequencies that I present to him- sometimes shifting quickly from very general logic to very precise real-life applications. He can handle “mature subjects” yet he has immediate access to a childlike simplicity.

Also, even when he experiences frustration or shame, he is able to brave his way through the process… at whatever pace. I am clear that some of what I share has been challenging for him (or presented him with the opportunity to face existing challenges in a powerful way).

For instance, he might make a comment about a frustrating development in his personal life (such as a car breaking down) or how some government is restricting a medical approach that intrigues him. How do I/we “fix” that frustration? We slow it down. We bring curiosity.

In particular, I find the mental filter that he has been using, present it to him, and invite him to evaluate that filter. Generally, when the old filter has led to confusion and frustration, it is simple enough to choose to invent a new filter. Inventing a new filter does not require me but can involve me.

Back to the wording Raquel used of “like a child,” there is a huge issue of openness and humility and even respect- like giving someone a second chance to make themselves understood to you. In contrast, most adults have been programmed by schools and media and so on to focus “only on the curriculum,” then on “only on the response that gets me rewards from the authority.” The issue with that is that people tend to worship popularity or sincerity instead of accuracy.

“True or false: our school is the best in the whole district because by rewarding blind conformity it encourages independent thinking the best.”

A “loyalist” reflexively answers whatever they expect will earn the reward, and that can certainly be a useful ability- to identify what the teacher wants to hear and then say that. However, it is also useful to be able to on your own recognize flaws in logic and then determine what is accurate, even if keeping quiet about it. Even if something is disturbing to mainstream presumptions and pretenses, even if saying it openly feels scary, one can still notice what is logical and accurate, even if unpopular or even feared.

Imagine 5 sincere people who all have strong opinions about a subject. How can we tell which one is most confident in the accuracy of their perspective? It could be the one who argues the least- perhaps only asking a few questions. Rather than arrogantly arguing and ridiculing other ideas, the one who is like a child is humble and calm, rather than hysterical about defending the popular ideal programmed in to them by their teachers etc.

What ideals? Things like this: “Here is how reality should not be.”

When those people go in to a conversation, they are bringing with them the “karma” of resisting anything that disturbs their sacred idolatry. They are fundamentally opposed to learning anything new that MIGHT disrupt their fragile self-image. In other words, they are cynical. But there’s more.

They may also bring ideals like “Here is how reality MUST be.” So, in addition to resisting anything contrary to their sacred presumptions, they also have the stress of trying to justify and rationalize their prior conclusions. How? By inventing some creative way to take reality (which they have been trained to disrespect) and then warping their actual experience to fit with the pretenses that they believe to be essential to avoiding punishment and earning rewards.

They are terrified of going to hell for failing to earn their way in to heaven. They are paranoid and agonizing and guilty of “being imperfect,” which may be as hellish as it gets. They may carry immense chronic stress, especially in their neck and head where their muscles block the display of “negative” emotions like fear, grief, frustration, and anger (from their face).

So, one possible challenge for those who are “more wise than most people” is to respect the sometimes dangerous hysteria of the mainstream while relaxing one’s own lingering momentums (from long exposure to schooling and mainstream media and so on). When I was 22 and deeply ashamed of my past loyalty to “fitting in,” all it took was the mere presence of someone interesting to me to throw me in to disturbance and heartache.

“I do not want to be so interested in you. I am still catching my breath from years of repression and paranoia. It is making my heart pound just to be standing close to you. The more attracted I am to interacting with you, the more energy that I will have to use to push you away in order to maintain my pretense of composure.”


%d bloggers like this: