Liability in describing bad realities

I once encountered a school of thought (and I have encountered many more ever since) which used to assert it was very bad to bring up, to mention anything ‘negative’, whatever that was supposed to mean. And the people that abided to that notion did press themselves as well as each others to be ‘positive’, whatever that was supposed to mean.

On the same time under the disguise of happiness and positivity some people who had assumed power seeked to muzzle whomever opposed them by using ‘positivity’ and labeling whomever disagreed with them as ‘bad’, ‘negative’, ‘faulty’ and so on.

That is a liability of not describing bad realities –that under the disguise of positivity negativity can thrive.

The closer one is to truth the better he feels, and the further away he strays from it the worse he feels, and that’s all positive and negative means with regards to humans. We all have an impulse for truth, no matter which direction(s) we choose to take in life. And to conceal a lie with ‘positivity’ is anything but truth, anything but positive.

On the other hand, if you follow that logic you see that it isn’t truth which brings about feeling bad, but it is lies. And that is the liability of describing bad realities –they don’t exist exactly like they’re described.

And if one has a tendency to adapt to asserted ‘reality’, (like it is thoroughly preached and covertly demanded by some, as they have made it synonymous to being ‘positive’)  one also has a tendency to adapt to (become) that asserted negative reality as well.

In other words, if one believes something bad, he then creates it himself, or even worsens it as he reacts against it.

A more direct, honest authority demands from others to do as he says, while a less direct, honest one describes how things are so they will be forced to adapt to/react against it. And it is always something negative, or fake positive thing, so they will become it.

What is the solution? The only true solution that thoroughly erases any problem, is the creating and knowing truth. Truth and lies are not black or white. One can be closer or further from them. And one step closer to them is one step closer, and one step further away is one step further away. And right and wrong can be very relative too to each condition, and to each person too.

Free advertisers

A person, a company, an ideology could pay another person or company to make advertisements on it’s behalf. However, that is much more expensive and and less effective than to have everybody advertise them for free.

Brainwashing could be defined as the inserting of ‘truths’ in a person’s thinking, without the person knowing about it, so as to control him. It is an enforcement, but a concealed one.

When somebody thinks he has to have a Mac or an iphone otherwise he will appear inferior others, that’s what he goes through. And that’s what he puts others to go through as well, when he does think others are inferior for not having one. Whether Macs and iphones are good or not is irrelevant, if somebody doesn’t buy them for them functionality but to show something to others. Seriously, I have nothing against products and luxuries, but I wouldn’t possess them for the sake of not appearing inferior.

Similarly, I wouldn’t support nor oppose any political ideology, religion etc so that others wouldn’t think bad things about me. But if one asserts one ought to be on somebody’s side so he wont be on some other bad guy’s side, or so he wont be -in one way or another- bad himself, there is an indirect, concealed blackmail involved. And when somebody buys a product or subscribes to some set(s) of ideas so bad things wont happen to him, and then he in turn shows that around, he becomes an involuntary advertiser, whether he calls himself that or not.

If you reverse all that process and have people not allow themselves or others to buy something or to befriend somebody or to subscribe to some set of ideas so they wont be bad, you don’t get anything different. You get the same force but in reverse. Reverse advertisement is reverse advertisement, and reverse blackmail is reverse blackmail as well.

So, I’m not really telling anyone to not have an iphone or a Mac or to not become a communist or a Scientologist so he wont have others throw rotten tomatoes at him. I’m not suggesting what anyone ought to or not do with regards to those things. I might (or not) agree with those things, and I might tell others about it too. But my own rights begin and end within myself. All I’m saying is be aware if you are controlled towards a direction or another without your known consent.

All that not allowing each other to be whatever they want to be, makes similar-minded people get together in closed groups (sects) and then bash at each other and never understand each other. And such conditions make the leaders of such groups particularly happy, as they use the subsequent necessities of war to impose their peace.

What suppression is made of

Today I see two main tendencies on the field of politics; one dictates what unfreedom must be like, and the other dictates what freedom must be like. They are both contradictory within themselves, as they say one thing and then they say the opposite, and that’s what they do as well. You get all sorts of ‘fight for freedom’ guys who impose their version of freedom through laws, through the police and the army. You get liberals, libertarians and neo-liberals who argue among each other what laws to be passed. All this ‘liberty’ and it’s about laws.

It takes at least two forces to have suppression; a single force is not enough. Both forces make two sides of the same coin, and what you get as result is being trapped in-between. And then somebody poses another coin against that coin, and then others do the same and you get a maze. And the most ironic thing to do is to call that freedom.

If there was a bully, that bully couldn’t suppress you unless you suppressed yourself first, leave alone that the bully himself is being suppressed as well. All your life you’re told to not use force, that force is evil and then one day you encounter a bully… So you get bullied and then you go bully another who doesn’t bully you, in turn. That’s what suppression is like. And all suppressive systems contain ‘using force’ as something evil, so force can be forced on them. And status quos wherein one suppresses oneself and then the other and that other suppresses another get formed. And then people go on TV accusing others they’ve never met of suppressing them, but they never accuse the ones that do suppress them, including themselves. And the accused feel suppressed too in turn -as nobody can talk back to their TV- and they turn against others they’ve never met…

You’re better off (more honest) teaching that everything in the material universe is evil, if you’re to teach that using force is evil for the material universe is made of force. And what they mean when they say ‘force is evil’ is that only you shouldn’t use force. Even those iconic, ‘serene’ pictures of sunsets and the happy people walking on the beach, that touristic companies use to get rich with are made of force. It takes force to move your body, it takes force to have a sun and everything else included.

Freedom doesn’t lead to chaos. Chaos is the result of colliding forces, and that is not inevitable in freedom. It’s just that without the freedom for those things to exist, none of those things could exist. Chaos is a product of freedom indeed but freedom is not itself chaos. And as chaos occurs more order occurs as a counter-measure. If you get more crime in a state you consequently also get more police.

Freedom is the one thing that cannot be defined, for if it is defined it is not freedom; although the defining it derives from freedom. I cannot tell you what freedom is, I could only approximate it by pointing out what unfreedom is. The same is true for truth as well. My freedom is my own and so is my truth. And if we can have our own without trying (in vain) to reduce each other’s we can have the perfect blending with each other, where one’s freedom can freely become another’s too.

Myths about intelligence

Brain size: If brain size mattered, if anybody really gave a damn, I should had been appointed to be among the rulers of this country or at least of my local area or something, since I’m quite a big-head –in fact my body is big in general.

Intelligent people think, stupid people don’t think: No, thinking does not imply intelligence, whether it is accompanied by speech or not. One can become unable to think due to thinking too much. It’s as if you had a room that had become overcrowded and no more people could fit in. One needs to be able to both start as well as stop thinking too, and at will. So not thinking doesn’t mean one is stupid either.

Intelligent people read books: Apparently somebody has figured out only intelligent people can also write book, or that there can’t be book that are utter rubbish. You know, just like anyone can blog, anyone can speak anyone can write books as well. And reading from people makes you as intelligent as hearing from people, as reading is but a way to communicate. That books=intelligence is an idea that circulates in school, which schools on one hand assert to help the intelligence of a child while on the other hand a school’s psychologist will insist that one’s intelligence can never change.

Intelligent people succeed in life: That can be very true if one uses intelligence to succeed. What is not true is that all have the same idea what ‘success’ is. I know I personally don’t care to rise through the ranks of any company that I don’t care for. One thing is for sure:  Although a relatively intelligent person could be duped to offer and be useful a dishonest group, one who is too intelligent wouldn’t care to offer to such a group by means that group would want the person to. See what happened to Socrates. Of course, from the state’s perspective Socrates was being unethical and stupid, but was he?

Ultimately, intelligence is closely tied to creativity. If one cannot freely create (and un-create) thought, one cannot freely be intelligent either. To get stuffed with thinking that inhibits free thinking is anything but being intelligent.

Intelligence is a personal matter and it is not a group matter although intelligent individuals can make an intelligent group. And specially when it comes to dishonest groups to have ones intelligence validated or invalidated means nothing –it can often mean the opposite.

The average

Average is THE criterion that certain elements in society use to judge whether somebody is a good boy or not.

It might not be obvious to an adult, but it is quite a pain for a child to become average. Don’t be too quiet nor too loud, don’t be too happy nor too unhappy, don’t be too lively nor completely dead. There is a demand on behalf of certain authorities in society to become that. And after one becomes that he might as well then demand it from others too. So it later on appears that’s how society ‘is’.

Children can get pretty ‘crazy’ on the other hand, since they haven’t yet undergone enough suppression so as to become average, and they can be a pain to an intolerant adult.

But how does one become average? Initially, in order to be that one needs to look outside. It isn’t an impulse that comes from inside. Thus it needs to be imposed from the outside to the inside. And what does that mean? It means that the person is ‘forced’ to be something, so as not to be too little of something (for example, ‘social’). And it also means the person is ‘stopped’ from becoming something so as not to become too much of something (for example, cheerful). So, in order to be that average there has to be a continuous controling oneself, so as not to get reprimanded, laughed at or other derogatory things, untill it becomes ‘flat’.

Eventually, the basic loss is that of oneself, as one becomes unfreer to express oneself like he otherwise would. And like some demand, one shouldn’t even ‘think’ of things that are not alligned with the average. To an extreme that would amount to all becoming copies of each other.

Such a thing can also help create numerous complications amongst people. Apparently, there can be a thing such as ‘too loyal’ or ‘too good’ as well. And that would also lead to not being ‘too trusting’ either.

Profiting from another’s suffering

The number of professions that would exist if human beings needed nothing from each other would be much smaller, unless new professions were invented.

If the was no illness or if one could cure it by himself there would be no doctors and no pharmaceutical industries becoming some of the richest on the planet. If one didn’t need capital to start a business or if people were generally more wealthy, the banks couldn’t lend money. If there was no excess of unemployed people compared to available jobs, almost nobody would agree to work for peanuts. If there were no STDs condom sales would drop dramatically. If people got along with each other more they would need to visit counselors less. And if there weren’t thousands of laws written in archaic dialects that one ought to abide to without knowing them, most lawyers would be unemployed.

Of course, I’m not asserting that all those people want another to suffer so as to make money. A doctor might indeed care to heal another, and do so indeed. And the same is true about all other professions. And such people should be the only ones entitled to make any money out of their profession, at all. However, if one’s job, responsibility is to handle something and he doesn’t do that, but he pretends to do so while in actuality he perpetuates, exaggerates or even creates problems so as to make money, we get some unfortunate conditions being created. If everybody focused on being effective instead of making profit, and if they were evaluated based on their effectiveness and not based on their wealth, this would be a much happier place to for all to live in.

Arrogance

Arrogance, ‘big ego’ is not thinking highly of yourself, it is thinking lowly of others; and those two things don’t go together. One doesn’t try to pull the other down because he thinks of himself to be high, but rather because he tries to get high that way.

It is a very different scene when one tries to stop and to pull the other down and when one tries to assist, uplift the other instead. If that could change, whole countries could switch from being poor and miserable and being bright and prosperous.

When all try to be humble, only the arrogant ones get happy. It is the wolves that all (others) to be humble sheep.

We are not dust in the wind. We are the dust and the wind.

Free Will

Above ethics, above what I like, dislike etc I put free will. I put it above those things because it is more basic. Without will those cannot even exist.

This can become easier to understand if one understand that free will does not mean ‘freedom of choice’. If you lived in France you’d have to choose between a banker and a nationalist in those recent elections. And if you detested one more that the other you’d pick the other, and that would be ‘freedom of choice’. It wouldn’t be free will though. Choices can be very limited. Freedom is the opposite of limits; it is unlimited.

No matter the odds free will is never really lost within an individual. It can be however part of his free will for his free will to be unknown to him.

You see a guy banging his head against a wall, and you tell  him ‘what are you doing?’ He says ‘I’m fighting against that other wall that’s behind me. That wall is evil; it will make your head ache, stay away from it.’ So he avoids that evil wall, and he bangs his own head against the other wall (the good one) all by himself, instead. He’s been taught those are the choices he has, and he believes it, and by his own free will he abides to that. If you tried to stop him from doing that, you’d be likely get attacked. Why? Because it’s his own free will to believe whatever he believes, to bang his head, and to blame the other wall instead.

I’m sorry but free will is above what is liked or not, and must be granted at all times. Try to take it away from one, and you lose your right over your own –and thus get attacked and so on. That is a terrific ‘life hack’. If you want your free will, never try to take it away from another.

There is vast difference between ‘I don’t care’ and ‘I don’t mind’. For me ‘I don’t mind’ means ‘you can exert your free will, whatever that is. And I wont feel threatened, bad, sad, this or that no matter what that will is’. Do you see how that granting of free will to another also means I keep my own? What if I was scared of somebody, wouldn’t I need to stop him from harming me? Wouldn’t I try to reduce his will? Oddly, if I did that, I might as well have that done to me as well. So my fear would come true.

There is no more complete freedom for one, than granting complete freedom to everything else. And there is no more losing control than trying to take another’s free will away –chaos ensues then. That’s what people try to do when they fight each other –to take each other’s free will away. And they -sooner or later- lose their own as well. That’s what resistance against what exists is as well, and that’s why it makes things worse.

I’m not suggesting to be apathetic; that would be ‘I don’t care’. I’m suggesting in order to exert your own free will, you must also grant it. Have yours collide against another’s and you have a problem. Let all be free no matter the odds and you are completely free.

Insult

The trying to reduce another through words, or by other means is not related to whether one is a ‘bad person’ or not, for ‘bad person’ means nothing objective, really. Who is bad for me might not be bad for another and visa versa. It does -however- meant something else; it means there is a need, an impulse of one to reduce another. And that impulse is not inherent in beings; it gets bought.

The number one reason one tries to reduce another is to keep his dirty secret(s) from being revealed. And the way one gets there is by having his secrets doubtfully revealed by another –doubtfully meaning not certain whether the secret is revealed or not.

If somebody wrote an article concerning -for example- pedophilia and another had committed something that resembled that, he would then need to prove that the article’s writer was bad, stupid, insane and so on, in an effort to keep his secret concealed. That’s what happens when people blame each other, and how that cycle becomes perpetuated by blaming each other.

Blaming cannot work unless the one blamed has nothing to feel guilty for. But on the other hand the impulse to blame is also caused by an effort to make oneself become ‘right’ when one also thinks of the opposite on the same time. It is a reaction against an action.

Do not confuse this with uncovering a plot to help another from being victimized. Blaming is about making another guilty. It is a form of punishment, war. Without guilts on behalf of the blamed one, blaming is of no consequence; and without guilts on behalf of the one who blames, there is no impulse to blame at all.

You will commonly find the punisher being the most guilty of all, compulsively putting guilts on others and trying to reduce their freedom so as to keep his secrets concealed. A guilty ruler or ruler wannabe will be trying to keep others in the dark and making them accountable for their misdeeds (whether true misdeeds or not) in order to keep his own misdeeds concealed.

Nobody is really obliged to have war waged on him without reacting. And on the other hand nobody is really excused to wage any war, nor to harm others by any ‘friendly’ means.

One is obliged to speak the truth, to be honest if he wishes to speak at all. And one’s truth should start from oneself. And that becomes difficult the more one lies about and hides from oneself in order to proove himself right. It’s those with the most impaired ability to criticize themselves that constantly engage in criticizing, reducing others.

Scarcity VS afluence

Imagine a war veteran who has been injured and gone through other harships that war has to offer taking a punch on his arm. And on the other hand imagine a guy who has lived in relative comfort all his life, avoiding conflicts, taking a punch of his arm as well. We all know that punch wouldn’t have the same effect on those two people, right? The veteran wouldn’t mind as much as the other guy would, correct? The veteran’s pain would most likely not last much and he might not even get a bruise while the other guy would.

But why? The veteran has had an afluence of getting hit, getting injured, experiencing pain and thus wouldn’t mind having some more. While the other guy who has had a scarcity of pain, would mind. He would resist pain more, and thus he would also experience it more.

The same rule applies to all pleasant as well as to unpleasant things. A person who has never had a sexual connection with another (although he/she wanted to) is much more likely to experience upset with regards to that connection. And another person who knew he/she could easily experience a sexual connection would most likely not get upset. It is a matter of thinking and it isn’t a matter of physical condition.

If one thinks he cannot experience something he tries harder and harder to experience it to the degree that thing becomes more and more upsetting to that person. That also occurs to a person who avoids something or fights against something or compulsively separates himself from it. That is how haters can be drawn closer together even more than lovers. It is trying to not experience something while on the same time trying to experience it. And that makes a problem.

Oddly, one can resolve a scarcity of a thing with an afluence of that thing, for scarcity means ‘I cannot experience that’. This tells you societies cannot recover from scarcity of money by creating further scarcity of money. Lower salaries will not bring about higher salaries. Less spending will not bring about more spending.

A common mistake a person can do it to tell him/herself ‘I will never experience that again’ or ‘that is bad’ after she/he had experienced that. What happens then? That person creates scarcity for himself, he says ‘I cannot experience that’, and he has trouble after that.

If you want to have ‘bad thoughts’, ‘negative emotions’ and so on try to stop yourself from having them. You’re going to have a hard time with it. If you were to remain bravely uninfluenced with regards to such things though, and could experience them easily, you could also control them –and that means not experience them.  Instead of that people are told to numb their thoughts and emotions, to run away and they never quite make it –not without repercussions.

One doesn’t have to dive into an afluence of a thing if he can’t experience it, but he could bit by bit experience it, untill it became easier and easier for him to do so. An afluence of a thing would mean -however- that person wouldn’t have to experience that thing.

That is the surest way to transcend all life –don’t hold yourself back from experiencing it, don’t resist it, live it.