Posts Tagged ‘system’

How is a system of justice “broken?”

April 9, 2014

Derpity Flerp replies:

You know… is it the system that is broken or [maybe it could be a little of that as well as this next thing, too] the common man or woman who is broken? As if they really wanted peace… would they be fighting for it? Would they be fighting for the “rich man’s gold” if peace was the desire? Laughable at best…and if white man can’t jump they can’t really assess the actual issues clearly either.

Herpity Derp adds:

“Or, Woody, maybe that is the first sign of how the system is working perfectly. The unrestricted WILL of the majority may be the fundamental enemy of all systems of governing, right? My wife and I were talking just yesterday about how either of the two of us has more political power than any of our 4 young children, even when they combine forces to try to manipulate the two parents in to taking them to Disneyland every weekend”

So, yes to Derpity Flerp, and what if the system functions to “break” the commoners (like taming a horse is called “breaking” it)? BREAK their WILL!


Also, I am very empathetic to the plight of those who are the most unfortunate, such as Woody, who has no interest in public perception of him (and no demons of guilt leading to him saying idealistic and trivia things about “peace and justice”). He reminds me so much of me about 21 years ago. Maybe with time, he will mature….

Anyway, I love to comment on things, don’t you, too, Derpity (and Woody)? I love to show my opinions and receive standing ovations for my performance of my role as smarty-pants with a smarty-ass inside. I am such a smarty!

So, on that note, most people are “mindless” in regard to the use of the word justice. If 4 people can use it to reference 4 specific outcomes that are not only distinct but totally contradictory, then maybe none of them are using it very well.

“Justice” is the pronouncement (dictation) of the ruler (the one who can issue legally-binding judgments enforced by the imperialist system of court-ordered coercion and conquest). Justice is always violent. Justice is always forced redistribution from one group to another.

When Woody used “peace” to refer to “the absence of disruptive military conflict,” that is fine by itself. However, to say “peace and justice” like he did establishes him as a retard and a communist (who often say retarded things like that).

Justice is the systematic redistribution of wealth through the disruption of domestic tranquility through the use of organized violence (especially against civilian non-combatants) to intimidate the masses in to paying taxes patriotically by April 15th. Anyone with half a brain can assess the simple reality of the issues, right? (Alas, poor Woody probably would jump up and down very high in response to this very frightening sequence of totallyinfuriating plain statements of fact.)

“What the common people want is the absence of organized violence and the presence of organized violence.” Right. They want Woody to display an absence of organized violence when they come to take away all of that retard’s huge hoarded concentrations of wealth (by force). 


Pay your taxes, bitch. We promise to clean up the environment real good if you personally give us $70 million within the next week (by the tax deadline). Better get to work though because you are still a few million bucks short and we don’t want to have to cut off a horse’s head and stick in the bed next to you.

will you be my hero?

April 4, 2014

Here’s what nobody told me
that I wish someone had told me
<Let’s talk about it>
First, resentment is good for one thing only
to create repulsion
Next, forget your regrets unless they inspire you
to calm acts of courage
Now, to know where you’re going
is more important than your speed
Last, speed is not the same as momentum
Learn the system
work the system
earn the system’s respect
<did someone say “money?”>
You can’t hurt the system
desert the system

or disturb the system
<until you get the signal>
will you be the one in my story who is the hero?
will you beat the villains and save all the victims?
we’ve got your script and the press conference is scheduled
of course if you don’t agree, there would not be a consequence
<bam!>

 

If I’m jealous of people who have what attracts me,
should I hide it and say “they should not do like they do!”
If I’m guilty of fearing a future that scares me,
should I fake remorse and say “how do I make it up to you.”
Learn the system
work the system
earn the system’s respect
<did someone say “money?”>
You can’t hurt the system
desert the system

or disturb the system
<until you get the signal>
will you be the one in my story who is the hero?
will you beat the villains and save all the victims?
we’ve got your script and the press conference is scheduled
of course if you don’t agree, there would not be a consequence
<bam!>

Using the system: post-idealist realism

October 4, 2012

Use the system

“Yes, I understand that my car won’t start, but you do not understand what I am saying. My car SHOULD start! That would just be so much more convenient for me….”

Computer Desk and Hutch

Computer Desk and Hutch (Photo credit: Scott Beamer)

I’m using a computer system right now. Which is more important: how it actually is operating or how I think that it should be operating, like based on some ideals or presumptions that are familiar to me from my past? Present or past: which is more important right now?

In our midst is a social system (including various social institutions). Which is more important: how the social social is actually functioning or how we think that it should be functioning? Realism or idealism: which is really more important?

Caricature of The Hon Sir Matthew Ingle Joyce ...

Caricature of The Hon Sir Matthew Ingle Joyce (1839-1930). Caption read “steady-going”. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

There are a few ways to relate to a system: as a raging enemy trying to destroy it, as a frightened victim trying to avoid it, as a guilt-ridden revolutionary trying to correct it desperately to compensate for my guilt and to hopefully earn my way in to heaven, and so on. How about this: as a participant partnering with the system?

I am physically a physiological system, like an organism with a system of organs. Which is more important: how the organism is actually working or how anyone thinks that it might be working or claims that it should be working or asserts that it could not possibly be working? Which is more important: reality or ideals, ideology, presumptions, labels, declarations, claims?

The reality about ideals is that ideals in language do exist. Ideals exist in language. Maybe one ideal is that ideals should not exist, but they do. One extremely ironic ideal is the ideal that ideals should not exist. It is the climax of hypocrisy.

Ideals are a normal and predictable phenomenon in language and consciousness. We learn to labels various patterns and then we naturally presume that all labeling is accurate and even lasting.

Let’s say that the weather is a system. Which is more important: the reality of the weather system or my ideals (labels) relating to the weather system?

I know I am being repetitive so far. That is because I want to be clear about the issue of arrogance and vanity. When I relate to anything as if it should already be how I expect or prefer or wish, that is arrogant vanity.

“The weather should be how I expected it” is arrogant vanity. “The weather is not how I expected it” is humble, with curiosity and learning possible.

“This computer system should be how I expected it” is arrogant vanity. “This computer system is not how I expected it” is humble and open.

“My physiological functioning should be how I expected it” is delusion, sin, hysteria. “My physiological functioning is not exactly how I expected it to be” is innocent.

Judiciary Committee Hearing in Wilmington

Judiciary Committee Hearing in Wilmington (Photo credit: senatorchriscoons)

Now let’s consider the social system. That includes things like the economy, the court system, the media, and the education system.

“This economy should be how I expected it” is arrogant vanity. “This economy is not how I expected it” is humble and open.

Caricature of Sir James Bacon (1798-1895). Cap...

Caricature of Sir James Bacon (1798-1895). Caption read “Contempt of Court”. Bacon was Commissioner of Bankruptcy for London and later Chief Judge in Bankruptcy, Vice Chancellor, Judge of the High Court, Member of the Privy Council. Obituary : http://newspapers.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/9361092?searchTerm=James+Bacon (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

“This court system should be how I expected it” is arrogant vanity (AKA “contempt”). “This court system is not how I expected it” is humble and open.

“The media should be how I expected it” is arrogant vanity. “The media is not how I expected it” is humble and open.

“The education system should be how I expected it” is arrogant vanity. “The education system is not how I expected it” is humble and open.

Let’s try the same process with your parents, your neighbors, and your pets. “Your parents, your neighbors, and your pets should conform to my expectations about how it would be really convenient for me if they already were so that I do not need to pay attention or adapt or learn or think.” That is arrogant vanity. “Your parents, your neighbors, and your pets are not how I expected them to be” is humble and open.

Which one is the ideal we have been taught? “Be like little children: humble, innocent, and open.” “Be like frustrated, confused, exhausted, whining, resentful demons throwing a tantrum whenever they get scared.”

Aramaic Bible in Plain English (©2010)
And he said, “Truly I say to you, unless you will be converted and become like children, you will not enter the Kingdom of Heaven. Whoever therefore humbles himself like this child, he will be greatest in the Kingdom of Heaven.”

Matthew 18:3-4

For to the pure everything is pure, but to those who are defiled and unbelieving… nothing is pure, but their mind and conscience is defiled.

http://bible.cc/titus/1-15.htm

Romans 14:14 …. if anyone regards something as unclean, then for him it is unclean.

English: Miniature from a French translation o...

English: Miniature from a French translation of William of Tyre’s Historia rerum in partibus transmarinis gestarum, (British Library, London) It depicts William’s discovery of leprosy in the future Baldwin IV Français : Miniature tirée d’une traduction française de lHistoria rerum in partibus transmarinis gestarum de Guillaume de Tyr (British Library, Londres). Elle représente la façon dont Guillaume découvre que le futur Baudouin IV de Jérusalem est atteint de la lèpre. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

So, any system can include protestors and reformers and defenders, right, and all of them compete with each other as they promote their conflicting ideals. There are always those who respectfully and curiously study any system. They may ask questions:

“How does it work? What methods produce what results? How can I use the system to the benefit of myself and my family or my clan? How do the people who benefit most from the system use it? How do the people who created the system use it?”

What is the reality of the economy? How can I use the reality of the economy to my advantage?

What is the reality of the court system? How can I use the reality of the court system to my advantage?

What is the reality of language? How can I use the reality of language to my advantage?

What is the reality of arrogant vanity? How can I use the reality of arrogant vanity to my advantage?

If these are questions that you would like to explore yourself, go ahead. If these are questions that you would like to explore with others like me, go ahead and let me know.

Responding with a curious courage… to recent financial developments

April 5, 2009

Responding with a curious courage… to recent financial developments

Quickly, let’s be clear what it does and does not mean to respond with a curious courage. I wonder if you can recall a time when you were not just already curious, but when your curiosity then led you to perceive a risk or danger that you only could have directly recognized through your own exploring, and then, after this discovery that you just made, you courageously redirected your behavior away from the perceived risk and toward a valuable opportunity that, again, you only discovered through the practice of curiosity. Let’s call that time now.

In contrast, what a curious courage does not mean is this: to identify how reality should have been, whether or not it was, then, when some pattern of reality did not fit with how it allegedly should have been, then to identify that pattern of reality as having been a problem, and then choose not to take any new initiative toward personal responsibility for one’s own future, but instead focus anger on whoever was convenient to blame for that problematic reality, and finally, identify whoever first provided you someone to blame for that problematic reality as the one to blindly rely on to almost fix that problematic reality next, since reality may persistently thwart reactive efforts to fix it by first blaming someone else for why it was not how it should have been (according to whoever denied that reality should be however reality actually already is).

Now, with a curious courage, we could be asking how did this particular apparent reality develop- yet with a specific concern for one’s own prior practices and the resulting effects produced from one’s own prior practices. That personal identification of one’s own prior practices as the primary issue related to the results produced by those practices is what may take courage.

So, let’s imagine that someone went to a casino and did very well for quite a while. They soon developed confidence and came back to the casino again and again. They made consistent unearned gains by using a certain method that worked for them over and over.

However, yesterday, they used that same old method but got a different result, that one which they do not value. Then, they kept trying that same method again and continued to get the result that they do not value. Soon, they lost quite a bit of their prior unearned gains- or even all of those gains as well as all of their original investment or even more.

Maybe they were afraid to even think about or look at their recent results. They may have been focusing on how much they used to have as if that was somehow more relevant than what they have left.

What would it mean to respond to this situation with a curious courage? Would it be courageous to look for someone else to blame for the recent results? Maybe you blamed the casino itself, or the government regulators, or a certain current or former employee of the casino, or perhaps your neighbor or even your neighbor’s dog.

Now, I might suggest that the particular investing method that you used is what produced the unfavorable result. Of course, it could be possible that the casino or government regulators did change some relevant rule, yet even if that were true, identifying such a change would not make your old method back into one that produces favorable results. If some rule had been changed and that is the single reason why your old method was no longer valuable, then knowing what rule has been changed might provide some insight into what other method might be valuable now, but you may not be interested in that yet.

After all, if the reason the rule was changed is because of your neighbor’s dog, then you could continue to use the method that stopped working but just get really angry at the dog. Or, while you continue to use the method that stopped working, maybe you could kill the dog, and then maybe someone would change the rule back so that your old method that stopped working might work again one day eventually, and you could just keep using it for as long as it takes, even though until that might happen you may be producing results with that method that you definitely may not value, because one day it could work again- you know, hypothetically.

That all could be true. One other thing though that someone with a curious courage might wonder is this: what about discontinuing the use of whatever prior method already stopped working to produced unearned capital gains? Sure, maybe the dog can be killed and the rule can be changed back to how it was and so one day possibly in the not-too-distant future the old method that stopped working may work again, but how about now? Sure, maybe someone can identify the neighbor that might have been in some way responsible for preventing you from continuing to multiply the unearned capital gains that you used to compound, and then maybe someone can get that neighbor to remedy the situation by paying to bail out the casinos that have suffered incredibly all because of that one dog. However, what about reconsidering the investing method which however long ago stopped working to produce the results you value?

Even if you advocate for a possible return back towards the prior situation, another possibility is that you explore modifying your investing method, at least until all dogs are killed so that you can know that no other dogs will ever prevent you from multiplying unearned capital gains with the single method that is most familiar to you, which is probably borrowing money to invest in real estate, but it could also be dumping money into various stocks and hoping that those stocks go up in value at least enough to balance any inflation and taxes.

I know a lot of people who I warned many years ago about the specific market developments that have since rendered their previously valuable methods worthless, resulting in losses of some or all of their unearned gains in real estate equity (or in US tech stocks or UK financial stocks and so on). Some of them even owe more on their mortgage than the collateral property is worth.

I also know a lot of people who have watched me make consistently accurately predictions of a variety of ups and downs in a variety of markets. Some of them may never give up the methods that they previously used to produce consistent unearned gains for them but that recently stopped working. Some of them may not ever explore a principle that works in all market conditions: partnering with the reality of market conditions and even partnering with someone who knows how to find opportunity in all market conditions now.

That might require a curious courage. Not everyone has that. For those of us who do have it, the fact that not everyone else has it is related to what distinguishes our results from their results, which includes the curiosity to be honest about the reality of market conditions, rather than defining some patterns of reality as “problems” to be automatically reacted to with personal blaming and blind devotion in the latest emergency rescue fix proposed, whether that is a political “solution” or some other silver bullet, like, whenever one has been confused, just investing in silver (or real estate etc) as the one magic solution to the persisting problem of reality not being the same as someone told you it should be.

Consider that reality is only a problem for those who insist on investing in opposition to it. For those with a curious courage, reality is an opportunity to partner. Now, with me and the investing methods that fit with partnering with the reality of market conditions, certain people get consistently favorable results in all market conditions. Not everyone will contact someone committed to partnering with reality to let me know that they are interested in consistently favorable results, but what about you?

JR
************

“Life is not what it’s supposed to be. Its what it is. The way you cope with it is what makes the difference.” Virginia Satir (1916-1988)


%d bloggers like this: