The problem with words

Words are like empty bubbles. They mean nothing by themselves. They are either sounds we make and hear through speech or shapes that we interpret; and to interpret means to add meaning unto something.

The sender of words adds meaning to the words he sends, and the receiver then adds his own meaning. If they both ad -more or less- the same meaning they may -more or less- understand each other. And that can be done by using the same dictionary definition of the used word. The fact that definitions may vary make that task harder than it could be.

Perfect understanding is impossible through words. If I wrote ‘dog’ thinking of some particular dog, the reader wouldn’t necessarily understand the same ‘dog’ I was thinking of.

Words always represent something -more or less- vague and never anything particular. Even if I referred to a dog that you knew about too, you still wouldn’t think of the exact same thing I was thinking by saying ‘dog’; for my thoughts are my own, and unless you knew those (my) exact thoughts, you also wouldn’t know the exact thoughts I had added to the word ‘dog’. You would only know your own thoughts and you could also make the mistake to think that you knew my own.

Words have no power, nor any other meaning of their own. If I called another a <bad word> he would then have to add a bad meaning unto that word, so he could feel bad about it too.

With words, and assuming one is honest, one always attempts to project one’s own truth, and never ‘the truth’. Like I wrote before both the sender as well as the receiver add their own meaning to sent and received words. There can be no words that represent any objective truth. But truth may only be known by and for oneself.

Spoken words are superior to written words in terms of understanding, for through speech we may also project an appropriate emotion that -if honest- contributes to more understanding. That may also be a reason why the social media can more easily evolve into ‘fight clubs’. People have a harder time understanding each other through text alone. It would be completely different to jokingly say ‘oh shut up’ than to say it with anger. And it would be completely different to ironically say ‘you’re beautiful’ than to say it with admiration. Text leaves much more room for assumptions to be made, particularly if the sender is -more or less- unknown.

Words are not the only means of communication, that is to say they are not the only means of making one’s thoughts, oneself known by another. One’s thoughts CAN be known to another, but not adequately through words alone.


How the leader became a boss

Most -if not all- do have an inherent inclination to offer their support to whom they consider to be a ‘winner’ and that term is very similar to what is called a leader.

But what is a ‘winner’? A winner in what? Exactly, there is no such thing. One can win in playing video games, another can win in amassing money, another can win in enjoying life or in being a good liar or a good serial killer and so on. Winning is related to what what wins in. There is no such thing as objectively being a ‘winner’, despite that arbitrary term that the media have propagated.

Surely, if you learnt from somebody who had mastered a topic (is a winner) he could -if he was honest- show you how to win too. And if you teamed up with such a person, if you assisted such a person you could -in turn- receive some of his wins as well.

However, there’s been a scarcity of such leaders, such winners lately who get acknowledged for being winners in some particular field. And on the contrary there have been people who don’t win themselves in any particular field(s) and are yet considered to be ‘winners’ because they say so and because they team up with others and they tell each other (and about each other) that are winners, leaders in some particular field(s).  And that’s due to false objective standards that -more or less- assert ‘if you don’t win in my game that I’ve set up for you, you’re a loser’. And that implies everyone must be contained in some other person’s game and try to win, otherwise they are ‘losers’. Well, not all care to engage into that.

You can tell the difference between a leader and a boss by various means. A leader is  good at something, he can do it well, so he then shows others how to do it as well. And because he is good at something he able to help others become good at it too. A boss tries to have others do what he cannot and what he doesn’t do himself. In other words a boss cannot work, or he is very bad at it. And the worse he is at work the more hostile he becomes at those who can work, and they cannot then work as well as they could.

Because there is a scarcity of people who take credit for what they can be good at by others as well as by themselves, and because -on the contrary- people who are not truly good at things take credit, things have been reversed and the term ‘winner’ and ‘leader’ have been confused with that of ‘the one who dominates others’, the ‘bad boss’ and so on. But it hasn’t always been like that.

So now a person can call himself a winner because he doesn’t allow others to win, or because he leeches from others what they themselves create, and the rest can look upon such a person and somehow ever ‘admire’ him and seek to profit themselves by supporting him. And that never truly works out. If you make a boss your leader for personal profit be sure that’s what he does too, despite what he says. The original sequence was the opposite; one used to assist a leader and the leader assisted that person too –but unlike now days, that used to be done honestly from both sides.


It’s probably occurred to you too to stumble upon arguments about taxes, welfare, races and other things. It happens to me all the time.

My question is why sit and argue while everyone can have what they want without adversely affecting the other?

What, do you think it’s not like that? You know it is like that. You know you’ve never had such problems untill you got told you had them.

What stops a -small or large- group of person to form a political, religious, philosophical, other group and live like they wish to? Answer: nothing. They stop themselves and then they try to stop each other too.

Because some try to have it all, that is to say some try to control it all. They demand that all must have their own system. And guess what, they’re not the only ones. On the other side there are many others who want the same. And that’s why we fail to be like we want to be and to associate with the ones we like, and to live the lives we want to live.

We can really have anything we want. We can have our feminism, our nazism, our communism, democracy, anarchy, catholicism, atheism, you name it; only for as long as we allow the same for others too. If we fail to allow others, we also lose our right too. And the same is true for how we wish our selves to be like or our intersexual relationships to be like or anything else.

Allow and be allowed. That is the only ‘thing’ that will ever work easily without conflict, without empires growing and then collapsing like they always do; like ‘pump and dump’ graphs of corporations that have risen and fallen too. I’m not telling you lies. Please, name one that hasn’t been like that.

The ‘allowing and being allowed’ is not really a thing; it includes everything that is and anything that could be. And it is win-win for all; except from those few I told you before. That is why it works.

Different systems, different rights and wrongs, different wins a loses

A system is composed of elements that can interact with each other by any means set.

Each one can have his/her very own system(s). An example of such a thing would be a system of thinking.

More than one individuals can also agree to create systems and set rules for them. Examples of systems could be a couple’\s home decoration, a political system, a religion.

What exists for one system doesn’t necessarily exist for another. Similarly, truths, lies, rights, wrongs, importances, wins and loses can be set to be valid for a system without that having any impact on another system.

However, it is possible to agree to be part of different systems simultaneously, which can create problems, confusions, particularly when those systems contradict each other. One can do that so much and so often that he can ‘lose himself’ in other’s systems.

The creator(s) of a systems is the inherent master of that system. And by entering another’s system you can automatically become subjected to it, while you could otherwise have complete freedom to create (or not), change and destroy your own.

A very basic lie, delusion in life is that there is one system that is one and the same and the right one for all. That automatically puts every believer’s systems to adhere to that system, for as long as they believe it. That puts them under control.

It is easy to be believed as that notion is somewhat similar to another notion, that each person is the whole. But ‘being the whole’ and ‘all being part of one systems’ are not the thing(s).

For that reason it is adviced for each one to hold on to his own system(s) and to connect to other’s (or not) at will, and the same stands for couples and for groups too. And that is called integrity.

There can be individual intergrity, but -given free consent- that intergrity can expand to couples and to groups too. And why would such a thing ever go bad unless it violates it’s own intergrity and/or respects the intergrity of others? And why would ever be any reason for a fight?

Does the government suppress freedom of speech?

Free speech can be ‘lost’ by speaking lies and half truths; particularly of the generalizing hostile/critical kind, that can be so common in ‘anti-‘ rhetorics.

That creates opposing factions that instead of trying to understand and be understood try to convince and to reduce each other’s freedom to speak, among other things.

And that can later on be reflected on governments as well, unless that’s where that process starts from in the first place.

Like ‘nature’ the government isn’t any particular entity(s). It is a vague, mysterious authority that is said to control all those things we refuse to control ourselves.

Basic rights

A liability of absolute freedom is that within it is included the freedom to be un-free. If somebody whacks another then that other’s freedom to live becomes hindered. Some basic rights and limitations can guarantee maximum freedom for minimum loss of freedom, so that we can be as free as possible while we associate with each other.

The only liability of applying those rights and limitations below would be that controlling others by means of force would be impossible; which is a rather nice liability.

This is a proposal I’ve thought up:

1. It’s nobody’s legal duty to communicate with anything/anybody (persons, books, literally anything). Communication (when wanted by all parties involved) cannot be hindered either. We could make a long list with types of communications that should neither be enforced nor hindered; for example rape is a sort of enforced sexual communication, as sexual senses are means of communication too. But an endless list is not needed if communication as a whole is considered a right and not an obligation.

2. It’s nobody’s legal duty to like anything/anybody. Liking (when wanted by all parties involved) cannot be hindered either.

3. It’s nobody’s legal duty to agree with anything/anybody (orders, advices, anything). Agreeing (when wanted by all parties) cannot be hindered either.

4. Offering work and money can only be done voluntarily. And nobody can hinder another from working nor from offering money.

5. All contracts of all sorts are completely null, for an agreement made in a specific time cannot be considered valid for any longer than all parties continue to agree with it. That is to say, a contract is an enforced agreement in time, and that violates #3 above.

6. Agreements can be made how the land of the planet becomes distributed. Beyond that point each land owner is completely free to do as he wishes with his given land.  Nobody but him/her are allowed to enter nor to otherwise interfere without the owner’s rote permission. Those who disagree with the agreements above are entitled to make other agreements on other chunks of land. Not all are obliged to agree over the same rules. And each chunk of land (now days called a country) can live by it’s all agreed upon rules; and if somebody no longer agrees with them he can move to another country. There must be enough countries for all types of agreements. And apparently, a country should be reserved for those who don’t agree to live by any rules at all.

Although each country can (potentially) have it’s own government, the above rights and limits should be watched by a neutral government. And a second neutral entity (the guardians) should make sure that government does apply those rules indeed. Should that government no longer be neutral it will get discharged.

Everyone must have the right to be in direct contact with the neutral government at any time from any place, so as to ask for assistance when needed. But precautions must be taken so that right wont be abused by people who’d waste that government’s time with false reports or other irrelevant things.

7. A country can decide to disagree with those rules above, and it should be free to do so. However, no resident can be held in that country without his free will, otherwise the neutral government will forcefully set him free.

8. Nobody can be held in any place without his will. Only if a person goes rogue (violates other’s rights) he can be limited in his own land, until the situation gets handled. Privacy without external interference will be the only equivalent of what is today called ‘punishment’, which is a rather counter-productive practice for both the violator and the violated.

One will have endless chances to redeem himself, which redeeming should be proportional to the damage done. However, redeeming will not be enforced.

9. The violating other’s rights will be the only case where one’s rights will be violated too, in order for seclusion to exist, and protect the rest from having their rights be violated. However, the right to privacy in one’s own land will under no circumstances be revoked for anyone.

10. As long as one does not violate the rights of others, he has full rights over himself –that is to say the controlling of his body, his thoughts, emotions, possessions –anything that is considered ‘his own’ and ‘himself’.

Two or more can agree to control or to be controlled each other, but only for as long and as much as they agree. A human being cannot be considered the property of another, regardless of age.

None of the above is meant to reduce the significance of common possessions and activities, of communication, love, agreements, associating with each other as friends, partners, lovers etc. But to rather ‘heal’ those things by making them voluntary; as I am convinced that when something becomes enforced it breeds problems and then another enforcement becomes needed in order to solve that, and more enforced measures breed needs for more enforced counter-measures, and those cycles never end, but in ashes. Thus I also see no point in fighting for any political ideology to dominate all ideologies. Thus, I’m not getting into details concerning economic systems. It is obvious not all want the same. But if each one and each group can have what they want then there wont be any problem, unless to control everyone and everything is what they actually want. Some have wanted that, but they cannot be allowed to bring that about at the expense of everybody else’s freedom.

It is obvious we are going through a period of transition. The globe used to be divided based on language and race, but that is now fading, and along with that older control methods are fading as well. The internet has even brought about alternative digital currencies that are -by far- superior to national currencies, and if left unchecked will certainly soon check national currencies (do you know you can get a debit card that automatically converts your bitcoins to $ and you can even withdraw from ATMs with it?). And even if that becomes suppressed by law, something new will soon pop-up. The globe is becoming united while on the same time more divided than ever on a political level. Now is the best time for something new to exist. We can have some significantly greater freedom of choices on both an individual and a social level, and a neutral authority to act as a referee and to ensure just that could be a good solution.

Free will and values

You must have heard -more than once- about how values limits freedom, and about how in actuality there are no values and that they are all a product of oppressive religion. Without commenting on whether or not values exist, that pretended freedom from values is utter bullshit. For the same people who preach that also preach that we need to hire more police because our survival is threatened, as we can’t get along with each other. They are among the first ones to point the finger that another or others are guilty ‘wrong’ things. What’s the upset for and what’s so wrong is there is no right as wrong (no values)?

Travel to any place and time wherein people couldn’t get along with each other, wherein they stole from each other, raped, cheated and you will also find harsh oppressive governments as well as general oppression from one to another.

If all could be trusted to stick to some basic rules, we would never need any police. And we have police not because we don’t stick to some basic rules, but only because few of us don’t.

Values don’t suppress freedom. Values are organized into an hierarchy; that is to say some are more basic than others. The one most basic of all is free will, self determination and it is the one value most hated by police-state fanboys and girls. They say ‘if you have free will you’re going to kill, steal blah blah’. And of course by saying ‘you’ they mean themselves. Others say that free will can’t exist at all, and it is only a delusion, and again they only speak for themselves. A peculiarity of freedom is that it doesn’t have to be, to exist and that is true for free will too. Forced permanent existence is not freedom you see; it is a sort of unfreedom. And free will is not something all are willing to exert. Why? Because they would kill and steal and blah blah, they think.

Below free will, self determination we have other rules. And they are ‘below’ because they are a product of free will. Some see -for example- a commitment between two partners as a limitation, as oppression. And indeed some have practiced it like that (for financial and other reasons). But it doesn’t have to be that. Two can enjoy to play by that rule of sticking together without feeling their will violated, for it is their will to do it. But they should be able to exit that game any time if it is their will to do so, as the forced existence of something is not in alignment with the first rule of free will.

Although two or more people can make arrangements with each other, agree over new rules, values; each one has his own and under no circumstances should he violate them because he sees somebody else doing so too, nor because somebody else says that his values are not valid.

Although it doesn’t appear so, it is far more important for one to be alright, aligned with himself than to be that with others. In fact, if one is in conflict with himself he has harder times with others too, and visa versa.

One of the first things aspiring revolutionary dictators aim at, is the values of a person, a couple a group. He aims to corrupt them, to bring about chaos and to impose his own and inconsistent values in place of them, that will of course be thoroughly enforced, even in the name of ‘freedom’ if he is too dishonest. Don’t be naive so as to buy that. You know what yours are. You know when your own actions make you feel good and when they don’t, without additives -like drugs- that are aimed are hiding your feelings from yourself.

Be your own compass and you wont be mislead. And you will never need anybody’s guidance.

‘The power of words’

Words have no power but the power one grants him by himself. And that power is valid for oneself. They appear to have ‘objective’ power only for as long and as much as we agree they have power.

If somebody spoke to you in a language you didn’t understand, he then couldn’t control you either, for words are control. You read or hear a word and you imagine something, and that imagination is how you interpret that word. It is your own imagination, your own interpretation. It is not the word itself. And if that word insults you, it is your own imagination again. So you see words can become a method to use ones imagination against oneself too.

Somebody says another that he is ‘stupid’ and the other feels bad about it for the next 15 years. But why? He would answer it is because of what he was told, because of the sounds somebody uttered at him (a spoken word) but it isn’t that. It is the significance(s) he adds to that sound he hears, himself.

We can become lazy enough to automatically interpret (googly or badly) all the words we read and we hear; and then through that automatic interpretation of our own we can also have automatic trouble. ‘Don’t read that, it’s bad.’ Why is it bad? It is bad if you think of something bad.

The instances that the average person’s survival is threatened by physical force (violence), starvation, illness are a tiny minority compared to the instances one can think his survival is threatened –all because of words. And he can have his thinking (and subsequently his body too) be driven by words to such a degree he can be thoroughly controlled by them.

It is not random that black magic is connected to words and other symbols. Symbols, like letters and words have no significance of their own either; but the significance one adds to them himself. If you draw a pentagram or a cross nothing happens to the universe, but if you interpret it something can happen; and it will be because of you and not because of the lines you’ve drawn.

Similarly, if you see a picture or even a movie and it has an effect on you, it will be the effect you create for yourself to have, the significance you yourself ass to that picture or movie. They themselves deliver no effect at all. It is all your own. And phobias and other adverse reactions can be triggered like that. And one can see a woman too and think of specific things; but those things, those thoughts wont be attached on the woman, but only exist in his own thinking. That we think certain things look good or bad is not a matter of what we look at, it is a matter of the significance we add to them ourselves.

Why am I bringing all that up? Because if you could quit putting significance onto things that bear none of their own you could discover ‘things’ are quite difference than you had been thinking all along. It wouldn’t be a world limited by the significance of words, but a world full of possibilities, and those possibilities are you.

A balance between acceptance and causality

I am very enthusiastic about this discovery, as I’ve been struggling with it the past few days. And although I don’t think it’s of much use to describe something rough, I think it can be useful to know when something rough has been dealt with and a lesson has been learned.

There is a misconception that acceptance means inability to make something happen. And in politics that is called apathy. You get overwhelmed by something and you accept it and that thing then controls you and you don’t control it, and you feel you ‘cannot do anything about it’ or so it seems.

It is not true. If you could accept all portions of your life as they are right now, not only would you not be unable to make something happen, but you would be in alignment (not resisting) with what you make happen, you would be in alignment with what you are.

This doesn’t have to be a process. It can be as simple as to decide to be that. It doesn’t take any analysis how things are. All one has to do is to accept what is no matter what that is.

Free will, the right thing and justice

The so called ‘right thing’ and ‘justice’ are not inherent ideas one is born with. Those are ideas one is taught throughout his life.

One ‘has’ his own impulse(s) what to be, what to create; and those may even vary from person to person. In fact he doesn’t ‘have’ them anywhere but he creates them.

The ‘how’s and ‘why’s one does not stick to his own intentions are not even related to what one’s environment does to him. It is solely related to what he does to himself or even to what he doesn’t do.

You must have heard of Crowley’s ‘do what you will’ motto. And I bet it must have crossed most people’s mind that ‘if one does what he wills, he will then harm others’. So then free will takes an evil significance. That notion can also be found on political talk as well, wherein the so called ‘free market’ is a source of evil in society, and that it must be checked, for it causes damage. A quick question and a bracket: In countries that are being regulated by thousands of laws, so many laws one needs to dedicate his whole life and career to learn (like when one becomes a lawyer) what is the significance of the words ‘free market’? I don’t see any point in arguing whether that market is good or bad since the term ‘free market’ is false in the first place. There just isn’t such a thing.

Similarly, an individual’s ‘free will’ is an absurd thing to say if that person is not indeed driven by his own will, but ‘freely’ drives himself based on what he has been taught in his life by his environment. And I’m not going to fight for anyone’s rights to his own freedom, if that freedom is not his own.

One can create his own free will, and that is the only true will he will ever have. Any other will that stems from anything other than himself is not his own, and it is not anything to be fought for. It is masochistic to fight for people’s rights to be driven by others, and it is hypocritical to call that ‘freedom’.

How does one lose his ‘free will’? One never really loses that as -like I said before- he doesn’t ‘have’ it anywhere. One creates it. And it can be his own creation too to be driven by the will of others. But why would one do that? The answer (or rather answers) can be very complex, and I don’t know them all. But I could point out some.

Some have been very inventive in inventing tricks to have themselves as well as others abandon their own free will. A popular method is to force or to hinder people from being and from doing certain things, and then put them to chant that it is their ‘freedom’ to do that. They say stuff like it is not freedom to have a single sexual partner. But what if that’s what one wants? Would he be more free if he did what he was told instead? Obviously, neither myself nor anybody else could tell you what your own will is or should be, for then it would be my own will and not your own. But if you did inherit my own will and called it your own, you would introduce a lie within your thinking, and I would then control you without you even knowing it. It is very different when two freely agree to have the same will, and when one tricks or forces another into thinking what he is told is ‘freedom’.

Regardless what one does to another, it is more important to pay attention to what one does to himself, for without one’s will to abandon his own will, that cannot occur. One needs to agree with another to have that happen. And before he even agrees with that, one’s loyalty to his own self, to his own will must be fragile.

One can have much more control over himself and over his life, his existence, his experiences than what one usually thinks. And for as long as he is shy in controlling himself, his life, he has to assert to himself that something else controls him, that something else forces him to do things, that something else deceives him, that something else doesn’t allow him to be himself. He can say that society controls him, or that his genes control him, or that his mom controls him through his subconscious. But if he indeed manages to create such a thing for himself, it will be by his own free will –it will be his very own creation to be controlled by something other than himself.

If you’re afraid to be what you will, to do what you will, to have what you will because bad things will occur, that’s what you do. And the irony is that bad things occur the more you abandon your own will, for you then make those things happen yourself. The further away you stray from yourself, the more you try to stop yourself from straying.

It is not true that one -having free will- works against others. It is true that the more one works against himself, the more he denies himself and his will, the more he assigns the bad things that happen to him to others and the more he consequently turns against others, as well. Even if one doesn’t agree with another, he will never feel he has to attack him unless he thinks his own survival is depended upon attacking him, which is -in most cases, if not all- entirely untrue.

Free beings that don’t have to connect with each other, can connect with each other. Free beings that don’t hinder themselves from connecting with each other, can connect with other. Free beings can co-operate or not. But with enforced connection, disconnection, co-operation, and chaos occurs. It is within the boundaries of un-free will that relative free will can cause trouble, otherwise one’s independence is guaranteed by his own free will, as one’s life experiences don’t have to be another’s too.

How to get rid of chaos in your life? Exert your own free will over it, with no remorse.