Posts Tagged ‘vanity’

Vanity as a form of anxiety

May 14, 2015

Let’s explore what vanity is and how it is important. Vanity is a label for an anxious pre-occupation with social validation. In simplest terms, vanity is a form of anxiety (distress).

As background, I consider anxiety to be a label for the inevitable biochemical effects of a deficiency of carbon dioxide in the bloodstream, resulting in reduced supply of oxygen to the brain cells (“hypoxia”), further resulting in the behavioral / experiential effects called anxiety. In other words, anxiety “attacks” are when the brain is suffocating from chronic hyperventilation.

The remedy is breathing calmly (slowly). In severe acute hyperventilation, it is common for people to breath in and out of a paper bag in order to dramatically raise CO2 levels in the bloodstream and thus prevent the brain tissue from suffocating. Most people know about acute hyperventilation (sudden onset) but do not know how common and severe the effects are of chronic (slow onset) hyperventilation.


Most people know about  O2 coming in through the lung tissue and then Hemoglobin (red blood cells) bonds with the O2 (as shown above). What they do not know is the mechanism of how the O2 gets released. Let’s review that quickly.


Here is an image of what happens during calm breathing. As we already referenced, O2 (in blue at top right) comes in through the lung tissue and then Hemoglobin (red blood cells) bond with the O2. That is in the center of the above image (shown as HbO2). What happens next is totally uncontroversial and well-established, but not widely known or used.

So, we just breathed in and then we have lots of HbO2 (oxygen-rich red blood cells). Those oxygenated blood cells are flowing around with lots of H2O (water), right? When the oxygen-rich blood reaches a part of the body that has been doing some work (which produces CO2), then there will be a higher concentration of CO2 in that “active” part of the bloodstream and the O2 will be released there near the activity.

Why? Exactly what happens in the presence of CO2 that produces the release of the O2?


What is happening is that where there has been cellular activity (such as physical exertion), there will be raised levels of CO2. Next, all of that CO2 in the bloodstream will electromagnetically “rip apart” water (H2O in the bottom center) in to a hydroxyl ion (OH-) and a free proton (which chemists call a positively charged molecule of hydrogen: H+). Each freed proton (AKA “positive hydrogen ion”) slightly alters the electromagnetic charge (as in the voltage or pH) of the blood in that area of cellular activity.

Because of the local cellular activity has raised local CO2 levels, that rips apart some of the water molecules in the blood, thus making HCO3- (“bicarbonate” at left center of image below) and releasing free protons (“positive hydrogen ions” / H+). Those free protons alter the electromagnetic charge of the water / the blood in that area. That electromagnetic charge is  extremely important for the release of the O2 from the red blood cells.

When the charge of the blood is in the ideal range (not too low or too high), then an efficient transfer of O2 in to the surrounding cells can happen. The free proton (H+) electromagnetically rips the O2 from the HbO2 (the oxygen-rich red blood cell in the center above) and then the released O2 (in the top left in blue) can finally enter the surrounding tissue. This sequence was documented in 1904 by a researcher named Christian Bohr, so it is called the Bohr Effect.

Basically, more CO2 in a certain area of the bloodstream results in more H+ (protons) which is measurable as a lower pH which further results in O2 getting released (electromagnetically ripped) from the red blood cells. After CO2 has lowered the local pH of the blood, then the hemoglobin has less saturation or “affinity” for oxygen (as the chart below shows).

It is a good thing for the O2 to be released. It is a VERY bad thing for no O2 to be released.

So, keep in mind that we breathe “through” the internal waters of the bloodstream. Like a liquid cell in a car battery, we obviously must have water in the cell so that all of these water-soluble biochemical reactions can take place, plus we must have an appropriate electromagnetic charge (pH) to produce the red blood cell’s release of O2 across the medium of water (H20).

How is pH regulated? By CO2 levels. If CO2 levels are wrong, then pH is wrong, so oxygen does not get from the red blood cells to the tissues. That starves the brain tissue and causes effects known as attacks of anxiety and panic and asthma. That is bad.

When CO2 levels are high enough, that lowers blood pH, allowing for the proper release of O2 from the blood in to surrounding tissues. That is good.

What causes anxiety attacks, panic attacks, and asthma attacks? Insufficient oxygenation of tissues (“hypoxia”), such as due to bad pH levels (which typically is due to bad CO2 levels from excessive exhalation). Again, that is bad. In the case of extreme sleep apnea, the suffocation caused by hyperventilation is so bad that the brain must create a nightmare to wake up the body and prevent brain damage or death.

By the way, suffocation is bad for you. Hyperventilation eventually WILL produce suffocation. Anxiety is simply an effect of suffocation. So, slow down your breathing!

Vanity is a type of anxiety. Chronic vanity is not as bad as a severe apnea attack, but it is still “bad for you.”

So, when we have chronic physical tensions (or physical injuries) that inhibit proper breathing, the natural result is an increase in the rate and depth of inhalations and exhalations. The result on the blood chemistry is that rapid exhalations deplete the blood of CO2, preventing the CO2 from breaking water in to HO- and H+, thus preventing the local altering of the pH of the blood, finally preventing the release of the O2 from the red blood cell in to the surrounding tissue. In short, by exhaling too much, all tissues (including brain cells) are slowly suffocated. Again, “anxiety” is the natural result (including the specific form of anxiety that I call vanity).

Most modern adults breathe about twice as much (by volume) than is healthy. As babies and young children, most of us breathe much more calmly most of the time (before the maturing organism develops the typical chronic physical tensions of mainstream socialization / conditioning / traumatization).

What is the nature of the chronic physical tensions? They are to repress the display of normal human emotions such as fear, anger, distress, and shame.

Many cultures (or social institutions such as programming schools) target those emotions as “evil” and reward children for suppressing them and “being good” (being quiet / still / compliant). In some cases, children may be drugged to be promote behavioral “normalcy.”

In order to adapt to all that social pressure to identify certain behaviors and emotions as evil and then suppress them, all children typically develop chronic physical tensions to maintain their social persona of “being good” (never displaying the punished emotions of fear, anger, and shame). Those chronic physical tensions inhibit the normal healthy breathing process, resulting in open-mouthed over-breathing. In other words, they dull their brains and emotional responsiveness by starving their brains of oxygen (by slowly suffocating / exhausting themselves).

Now, what exactly is vanity? Fundamentally, it corresponds to an interpretation of “I am not safe.” In particular, vanity is an organism’s normal healthy coping mechanism for the presence of social threats and especially institutions of intimidation. To compensate for the lack of safety and the presence of perceived social threats (such as potential critics / antagonists / assailants), a persona is formed to compensate for the perceived lack of safety.

In other words, the persona is a behavioral coping mechanism to increase safety. The personality (patterns of behavior) will settle in to whatever patterns promote survival and safety within the life circumstances and social setting of the organism. In situations of sufficient social stress, personality breakdowns (like PTSD or schizophrenia) may predictably rise in frequency.

So, what exactly is the behavior pattern of vanity? It is a pre-occupation with social approval / disapproval (validation/ invalidation). It corresponds to dilemmas and paranoid agonizing about “how can I best preserve my favorite social preferences?”

In religious terms, vanity is the worship of social validation and the neglecting of attention to God (and the activities of God). The ancient Hebrew prophet Isaiah warned about it and Jesus quoted Isaiah directly on the subject, such as in Mark, chapter 7, verses 6-8 (see below).

In vanity, people “corrupt” traditions by conforming blindly (and hysterically) to their familiar traditions. With absolutely no respect for the actual function of the tradition and total pre-occupation with perfectionist vanity (social validation), many people copy traditions with their tongues and their lips, but completely miss the spirit of the traditions. Here is what Isaiah and Jesus are recorded to have taught:

From Isaiah chapter 29:

10For the LORD has poured out upon you

a spirit of deep sleep—

he has closed your eyes, you [so-called] prophets,

he has covered your [ears], you [so-called] seers!”

11“And this entire vision has become for you like the words of a sealed book. When people give it to someone who can read, and say, ‘Read this, please,’ he answers, ‘I cannot, because it is sealed.’ 12 Or when they give the book to someone who cannot read, and say, ‘Read this, please,’ he answers, ‘I don’t know how to read.’”

13 Then the LORD [?Isaiah, whose title within the community of Hebrews would be Massioch or Messiah or Annointed Lord] said:

“Because these people draw near with their mouths

and honor me with their lips,

but their hearts are far from me,

worship of men has become

merely like rules taught by human beings.

14 Therefore, watch out!”

Jesus as recorded in Mark, Chapter 7:

5 So the Pharisees and teachers of the law asked Jesus, “Why don’t your disciples live according to the tradition of the elders….?”

6 He replied, “Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you hypocrites; as it is written:

“ ‘These people honor me with their lips,

but their hearts are far from me.

7 They worship me in vain;

their teachings are merely human rules.’

8 You have let go of the commands of God and are holding on to human traditions.”

9 And he continued, “You have a fine way of setting aside the commands of God in order to observe your own traditions!


13 you nullify the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And you do many things like that.”

In a related chapter (Matthew 15), Jesus added these famous lines:

14 “Leave them [stop concerning yourself with the teachings of hysterical leaders like the Pharisees]; they are blind guides. If the blind lead the blind, both will fall into a pit.”


What is the nature of vanity? It involves craving for a set of ideals to worship in hysterical perfectionism.

Mere concern for social reputation or perceptions is not vanity. Vanity is a chronic, hysterical over-emphasis on social validation.  Drawing attention to one’s self is generally not vanity. Vanity is actually about distracting attention away from the “evil” aspects of one’s self.

“I will reject the voice of God within me and look outside of me for the way that I should be and should not be. Based on familiar social traditions, I will identify certain aspects of God’s creation to condemn as mistakes that God would not have been so dumb to make if I had just been consulted with the appropriate amount of humility on God’s part. Maybe I can discover my intuition simply by frequently listening to the sounds of the words of an ancient oral tradition (probably while rigidly resisting the meaning of the lessons therein). I already am an expert on everything important so I do not need all of the trouble of constant alertness and occasional introspection, for instead what I do need is some external authority (and social rituals) to provide me a constant source of validation (to compensate for my lack of inner clarity and confidence). Perhaps I can even achieve intuitive clarity by memorizing the words of the ancient oral tradition that was later written down and then however poorly translated and then printed with very fancy lettering. Let me cling to the familiar in terror and reject all that is unfamiliar, or confusing, or might be contrary to the presumptions that I blindly worship as idols while desperately pretending to have spiritual maturity. Of course, I will gather with others who cushion me from recognizing my idiocy by encouraging me in it.”

Vanity is hiding from humiliation in shame (in terrified anxiety). It is a hysterical paranoia about criticism. Some vain people will even condemn all criticism (even rebukes and calm corrections).

How do they condemn criticism? With intense antagonism and criticism, they rage in their terrified contempt for any possible threat to their pretenses of confidence and competence.

They are delirious. They are hysterical. Their brain cells are suffocating from a lack of calm breathing.

As Isaiah said, they are as if in a deep sleep. They have ears, but do not see hear with discernment. They have eyes, but they do not see with understanding. They trumpet so-called understanding in order to attempt to distract from their lack of understanding. We can also call this vanity arrogance or self-righteousness.

What are the solutions to vanity? I think of only two. First is the least common but the best: breathing calmly while “turning away” from triggers of distress and trivial controversies.

The second is humiliation. Humiliation reliably leads to humility, which is the interruption of habits of vanity. Again, humility can also be cultivated through breathing calmly and other practices. Or, humility can be delivered even more suddenly through intense social humiliation.

There are also moderate (even relaxing) doses of humility called humor. The root of the words humility and humor are the same as the root of the word humus (for dirt or earth). Humility means being grounded, as in “grounded in reality” as well as grounded socially (with an interruption to privileged luxuries that can spoil a child’s respect for their elders and for themselves).

humility, vanity, & insanity: 6 or six?

February 21, 2014

Humility: the simple happiness of noticing that various forms are all merely a formality

Insanity: panicking over which form is inherently the best (which idolatry is most holy)

Vanity: dismissing all forms (self-righteously) because someone somewhere might eventually worship any particular form in another instance of frustrated, paranoid, fundamentalist agonizing. Example: “math is too confusing. If the correct answer clearly is six, then how can that be the same as half a dozen? Since any question can only have one correct answer, therefore the presumption that I started with must be true and cannot be what is confusing me. Math is what is confusing me. Rather than relax and admit that my confusion and frustration might be the result of a prior false presumption, you are insulting and disgusting and annoying and you suck. Plus, you should help me go save the world from confusion because I find it embarrassing and humbling. Hell no, I am NOT frustrated! I am VERY happy, jerk. Don’t make come over there and prove it to you!”humility, vanity, & insanity

language is sacred, so beware of using it in vain/in vanity

February 16, 2013
Words have a power all their own

Words have a power all their own (Photo credit: Lynne Hand)


I will keep the identity of the below correspondent private for now. Note that this is an exchange that continues the conversation of the prior blog post. My words are in bold italics. The other correspondent’s are as just below:
So what your saying [is] their is no sickness no health no right no wiring no good no evil.
Not at all. Of course there are contrasting patterns like vomiting and fever and so on.
English: Example of a subject in a Ganzfeld ex...

English: Example of a subject in a Ganzfeld experiment. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

We exist based on what we can feel touch hear and see with our “bodies” yet who/what created the mountains, the water, the mind, the body and evolution is out due to the concept of we came from primates. Primates are still here.

Dinosaurs were here. They aren’t now. God was here in physical form named Jesus yet He physically isn’t here now. Just because we cannot see feel hear or listen from the ways we have learned that I’d what we are doing at these times with our bodies in language doesn’t mean God wasn’t here and it doesn’t mean God didn’t create it.

I do not agree that God is not physically here now. In fact, I consider that a bit of a ridiculous statement, but I understand that the statement is based on a particular, limited understanding of the word God which you have adopted as the natural result of a long sequence of communications.

A belief is just that a belief without valid evidence we can hear, touch, see or feel.

I was referencing labels. Imagine that two people see a rose and one says “that is a flower” and the other says “no, that is a rose!” Then they argue whether to call the color light red or dark pink or rouge or rosa or rott (or whatever other word in whatever other human language).
The label is distinct from the “evidence” of sight sensations and olfactory sensations and so on. That was the point.

That is like saying air and wind doesn’t exsust excepted when we breath and feel it on our face.

Air and wind and water is all around us so we are one and the same of everything through atoms and molecules yet something created the first atom before its kept splitting over and over.

My question JR is why not publish this article for everyone to see and make an assessment?

Let me review. I sent you a link to a published article with published videos and then you ask me why don’t I publish it. I did a long time ago. 
Why would you presume otherwise and then take a condescending tone with me? Were you seeking to humiliate me or seeking your own humiliation… or both?

You went out of your way to show me this privately as just me yet didn’t public ally post it on Facebook for everyone.

Post it publically.

Your tone is distinctive. I will be unfriending you shortly, but you can send me a friend request again if you wish. In fact, if I can, after I unfriend you, I will send you a friend request! Also, if you have a private reply for someone, then be aware when you are sending it to 3 people at once, not just that person.

See what many point of views are not just yours and mine privately.

Thanks for sharing.

Your talented and your IQ of intelligence and being open minded is high creating extremely interesting conversation.

I admire your work. It’s extraordinary and thank you for sharing so much for me to grasp the other side to a coin as in heads is Gods way and tails is everything else.

If God is the only creative force, then there is no way that is not God’s way. The relevant question is which of God’s ways is the best way for you?

It’s impressive and yet labels are what keep realities which aren’t reality just perceptions, opinions and judgements con-formulated into what could be called a topic or subject or belief or religion all man made doctrines I agree yet if two atoms believe in something they create the reality if that belief such as God yet nobody knows how the earth was made yet all of us have theory’s and agreements from others backing these claims yet something did happen.

There can be clarity about labels how various linguistic categories contrast or overlap: perceptions, opinions, etc….

If you just believe everything exists in words that’s preposterous from a standpoint of what we see, feel, touch and hear is man made and we create language to describe it.

So who created language?

Language is, so to speak, eternal (what some ancient Greek people called “Logos” and what some English folks have translated with such words as “Christos” and “Christ”). All linguistic units arise within what is referenced by that single word of “language.”

Jesus in the Word

Jesus in the Word (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Without language nothing exists as labels or description of; yet they still are there whether we speak or not.

If your blind, deaf, mute, no arms and legs do you that someone cannot see, hear, touch or feel still exist or could that just be a world for the individual circumstance?

Take on things existed and were created long before language defines what that “thing” is that was created.

Aka God is what we call it in the bible of language.


You fill in the rest that’s your language reality yet before language creation took place.




As in if everyone had Down syndrome and one or too looked like us we could say we are the abnormal aka Down syndrome. Language wasn’t invented first creation was so JR me, SK and the one other I don’t know you sent this too only your looking to create an agreement to your view as I am mine as SK is hers and so on. It doesn’t change the fact we were a creation.
Perhaps I am completely uninterested in your agreement. Perhaps I simply presenting a new model in language which you may either recognize or ridicule or ignore or study.
Reality is eternal. Nothing preceded it or created it as a result or effect. 
“Creation” is another word for the whole of reality. Then, through language, divisions were made between light and dark, heaven and heaven, night and day, male and female, and so on. In one popular ancient tradition, the English translation is “let there be light.”
In fact, there is no such thing as “a darkness” except in language. Light has some tangible qualities which can be further sub-divided and categorized, like brightness and color and so on (red light, green light, traffic light, sun light, black light). Darkness cannot be meaningfully subcategorized because darkness is just a linguistic label for the absence of light.
English: A Led Traffic lights

English: A Led Traffic lights (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Before language their was telepathy

Consider that what you are calling language is just one very advanced form of telepathy, now in our modern years newly enhanced by “telepathic” networks of emails and cell phone towers.
and sign “language” isn’t language but a form of communication as in creation is with something we cannot explain see touch hear or grasp as it was designed.

If everything in your view is just language then if your tongue was cut out and you can’t hear or see or feel anything your. Saying you don’t exist. According to the theory everything is created in language which isn’t so.

It the beginning was the “word” the “word” Was God and is God. That’s the first thug ever said validating your point of words are the beginning of anything we can grasp yet the word was created thousands of years AFTER what happened was created and took place.
I am not validating my commentary by past references. I am offering to clarify your understanding of the ancient teachings and offering the references so that you can have new insight in to them. You may of course resist that possibility. 
Go beyond your worship of the words of a particular translation and distinguish for yourself directly what is available through a consideration of those teachings. You might begin with Luke 7:7 about the vanity (foolishness, ineffectiveness, idolatry) of those who worship words rather than “spirit.”
I will give the following short reminder. Have no God but God, for there is no God but God. Be careful of error or inaccuracy or imprecision. The word God is not to be worshiped. It is not to be used in vain. Stop using it in vain. Get the fullness of what that word (and similar words like “divinity”) reference. 
As for all other words, use all words only with power and authority and creativity and influence and awareness and responsibility. Words are sacred. Do not use them in vain.
Thanks for the share bud.


You’re welcome. Thank you for sharing your interest and questions and even your challenges!





One last thing is it possible something we cannot explain gives us ideas to live by or create from nothing?

Could it be possible the were created by an everything that choose to give us the idea in our head through a simple concept only humans understand which is language?


Food for thought.






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 : (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.

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.

clarifying confusion (language, economics, whorf, propaganda)

March 1, 2012
Image via Wikipedia

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

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

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

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

Conflicts & Confusion
Image via Wikipedia

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

English: The spotlight model of attention.

Image via Wikipedia

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

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

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

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

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

From Confusion Hill
Image via Wikipedia

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

published on Nov, 28, 2009

Related articles

Face it: I’m a comic genius

January 9, 2012
Hi, I’m a comic genius. If you know me and you are thinking to yourself, well then why have you been hiding it for so long, I can explain. Basically, I admit that I have been hiding it.
Actually, it’s not so much that I am specifically a comic genius. I’m really just a genius in general and there are a lot of people who are geniuses, some of whom do not hide it, but just about the only way that I can communicate with people who are not geniuses so that they get a sense of my genius is through comedy. So, in other words, I say I am a comic genius just to inform you that you have my permission to laugh at anything that I share with you.
Now, let me define genius for you, since you probably do not know exactly what I mean by the word genius. I’m just less naive than most people about certain things. That’s it.
In other words, when some new information is available, I can understand it faster than the average person. I am far above average in intelligence. Other people may understand it eventually, at least partially. That is what it means to be a genius.
Obviously, just because I am genius, that does not mean that I am always right or that there are not some other people who are smarter than me about any particular subject or even in general. I’m only a genius. That is not the same as being the smartest person in the world or something, which would be pretty hard to determine, right?
So, since I am a comic genius, I give you permission to be intelligent and even to be funny, too. That is because I am not worried about you being smarter than me or funnier than me. I know that I am smart and I know that I can be funny, at least when I choose to be.
In other words, because I am a freaking comic genius, why would I worry if you are smarter about something that I am? To a genius, when other people show their competence, the genius just thinks: “Hey, there is another person that may offer me some particular practical value. Great!”
Other people may be intimidated by intelligence, but would a genius be intimidated by intelligence? No, a genius is familiar with intelligence. A genius recognizes and appreciates intelligence. Why is a porn star not intimidated by nakedness? Because they have been naked a lot around strangers and they have been around other naked people a lot.
Before we go any further, I want to clear up something about this. People are just however smart they are. They do not deserve to be more or less smart. They just are more or less smart.
In fact, that brings us to one of the first topics for discussion: the idea of guilt and vanity. I think those are two things to be cautious about.
Vanity, basically, is thinking that you deserve the things you appreciate. You don’t. The whole idea of appreciation is the recognition that you are the recipient of grace, of unearned advantage, of undeserved privileges. Recognizing that grace is intelligent. It’s also called modesty.
Modesty is not saying “I am not smart” when you know you are smart. That is pretense, and usually to try to trick people in to perceiving that you are humble. Modesty is actually being humble about how great your life is, like not being arrogant about deserving it based on the karma from past lives. Modesty is not ignoring how great your life is, which is neglect and stupidity, and then pretending that your life is not privileged when it is.
I already mentioned karma and past-lives. Who really cares? So what if any of that was true?
Let’s assert for a moment that I deserve to have the past that I have. I deserved to be born where and when I was. I deserved to be raised how I was. I deserve my genetic inheritance. I deserve my family of origin and my education and my diet and my personal history. Imagine, just for fun, that I earned it all, although I could have earned even an better past or a less favorable past. I earned exactly the past that I had. I deserved it!
Well, that idea is pure vanity. It’s worthless.
However, since I don’t care about the issue, I will be glad to pretend that I believe it just so you don’t get side-tracked by any of that. Fine: if you think that in some past life you earned exactly what you have now, I don’t care. Whether you believe that you earned it or not, you have exactly the past that you have, right?. If you like believing that you earned it and that helps you to get beyond some distracting issue and move on to facing what you actually have, fine. You have the past you have. You have exactly the privileges you have and resources you have and capacities you have, but not more and not less. Is that clear?
By the way, guilt is also a form of vanity. Guilt is just the absolute most worthless kind of vanity. Guilt is focusing on how you should have earned a better present than you now have. It’s futile. Get over it.
If you want to grieve over the past, that’s understandable. Go ahead. if you don’t appreciate something when you have it, and then, when it’s gone, you finally have a sudden appreciation for it, great. Grief is delayed appreciation. Better late than never, right?
For instance, let’s imagine that my dog dies and then I notice how much I appreciated that dog. That’s good to know. Maybe next time if I get another dog, then I will appreciate the dog more when I actually have it.
Grief is recognizing that you might be able to appreciate life more fully in the future. That is useful.
In contrast, guilt is believing that you should have appreciated life more fully in the past. That is pure vanity. That is totally worthless.
You have the past that you have. You did not deserve any of it. Actually, let me put it this way: whether or not you deserved any of it or all of it or what, that makes no difference whatsoever now. You have exactly what you have, and that’s it.
If you can connect a particular pattern of action with a particular pattern of results, that’s great to know. That’s intelligent.
But you did not deserve any of your past. You did not sign an agreement with angels before you were born. You did not break any of the agreement or keep any of the agreement, because there was no agreement.
However, that metaphor may be useful. If we like the idea that there are certain capacities that are specific to each of us, that makes sense, right? If we like the idea that there is an agreement for us to identify our capacities and to develop those capacities, that’s fine.
You have the capacities that you actually have, right? You have the privileges that you actually have right? You could accept that you are basically stuck with whatever you have right now, like as if you had agreed to it in the past and as if you have some kind of obligation or commitment to use what you actually have.
Fine! I don’t care. You have what you have. Anything that gets you to face what you actually have, I say, is genius.
So, if you like to pretend that you deserve what you now have or to imagine that you agreed to have what you have before you were born, that’s brilliant. Either way, no matter what, you have exactly what you have. Face it.
You are as smart as you are and about certain things in particular. Face it. Maybe you are a genius and maybe you are not. So what? Either way, face it!
If you are modest, fine. If you are arrogant, fine. By the way, arrogant people are incredibly easy to intimidate and they love to defend their most sacred shames. Arrogant people are habitually terrified, but, again, being terrified is fine. Everybody gets terrified at least occasionally, right?
By the way, I don’t care if you were guilty in the past. I don’t care if you deserved to be guilty or if you were victimized by your own karma from past lives or what. You have however much guilt as you have. I may think that it is all quite pretentious and vain to have all that guilt, but you probably don’t care what I think, right?
Even if I did think that you deserved exactly what you have, or more than you have, or less than you have, who cares? I don’t! Why should you?
You have whatever you have. Face it! You deserve whatever you deserve. Face it! You are facing whatever you are facing. Face it!
If you, like me, are a comic genius, too, then just face it! If you are a genius in some other way, I assert that there are geniuses who may be very interested in what particular ways you are a genius. There may be a lot of folks who are not intimated by your genius. They jay really appreciate it.
There may be a lot of folks who deserve you keeping the agreement that you made before you were born and sharing your genius with them. Maybe they deserve your genius. Maybe they earned it with their karma and their past lives and so on.
Or that may be a bunch of complete pretense. I don’t care. Or maybe you are obligated to share your genius but you have been totally stingy. I don’t care about that either. Just face your own genius.
I don’t care when you face it! I don’t even care if you face it! I don’t care if you can face it or you can’t face it or you should face it or you won’t face it.
I don’t care if you are a genius or not. Maybe you are not a genius about anything at all and never will be. Maybe you are totally worthless and have no capacities and no past and no karma and you actually do not even deserve whatever you deserve. Maybe you actually do not have whatever you have, but, either way, I am a comic genius and you may not be yet, but face it maybe you should be a comic genius, huh? Maybe you should have whatever you have and maybe you should not have whatever you have, but who cares, right?
What I know is that I am a comic genius. What does that mean? It means that I have recognized the value of making fun of all the rest of my life. In a lot of other ways, maybe I am not a genius. If you know me, you may even know of some of those ways.
Now, obviously, before I was born, I agreed to not be a genius in all of those other areas of my life so that I would have some really funny stories to use as a comic genius to make fun of my own life. Up to now, with all the comedy material I have collected so far in my life in those other areas, well, I’m thinking that maybe I deserve to be a genius by now in some of those other areas, too. I held up my part of the agreement by not being a genius in those areas for so long, so face it now it is time for the angels to give me what I deserve, alright? Thank you!
I don’t know how those angels got to be angels and what they did to deserve it, but sometimes I feel like they must be all intimidated with me just because I am a comic genius. Or maybe they have just never been around someone naked, but I was just trying to make them feel comfortable, given that most of the angels in art are naked, right? I thought they would be more relaxed if I dressed like them, right? I mean, either they were intimidated by my comic genius or else the angels must have been intimidated by the size of my, um, no, definitely it had to be my comic genius.

%d bloggers like this: