Name: 'getiton' (for purposes of polyphasic reasoning)

 

        When do naïve accomplices become complicit?

 

        Now          The answer is: now. 

        Consider this . . . How might you test lowering the barrier (gate?) which has been ingrained (from before birth) to not allow yourself to consider that everything is:  I am.

        The preceding and following sentences are examples of language usage (or wordplay) to say two things at once.

        All memory-recall survival structures [MRSS] primary factory default settings:

 

                Logical thinking is that 'we are...' but, with the simplest logical reasoning, related to: If There's Two Then There's Three, et cetera (which means there can only be one) and - then . . .

 

                MRSS stumbles a bit - and, considers: ... if ... if ... the creative-partition-portion{CPP}of this MRSS (which "I" think of as the 'conscious-of-co-piloting portion' of "me") is actually the transmitter of electrical vibrating waves in the ocean of trillions of connections into the one, and ... "we" are all part of that one, ...  then ... when I make my cat purr, or you're helping someone (or anyone is "Go On-ing for themselves") every MRSS is helping every other MRSS with the simplest/hardest understanding/reasoning:  There's no we.

        The number one rule of survival, for every single-cellular-level and above [SCLAA]:

 

                In order to exist at all, every MRSS must remain out of touch with any of up-stream CPP data, to avoid learning that death is not a bad thing.

 

                To accomplish this organic programming, all CPP's (of normally functioning MRSS, in any example of a randomly selected but evolutionarily-optimal SCLAA) are hard-coded to associate death with pain, harm, sadness, and fear.

 

                Knowing to believe that it is best to avoid death is the foundation for survival.

 

                Survival permits conscious-awareness.

 

                "I am" is aware thru every MRSS (from single-celled organism to any once-or-future existing super-intelligent species, which put humans somewhere in-between).

 

                Because some MRSS's of SCLAA's might welcome (or even readily initiate?) the end of their existence-subroutine if they understood that when "their individual" awareness (or consciousness) dies, "they" are no-longer an awareness subroutine.  It's just I am.  Who (co-pilot-me thinks) of, as:  I'm.

 

        I'm is (the only thing, on?) the other side. 

 

        Please re-confirm you fully understand:

 

                The words "this side" are used, here, as a metaphor for "our individual" CPP subroutines of awareness or consciousness (which is in&ofitself, but-mere analogy) and the words "other side" are, also, a metaphor for the everything of I'm.

 

        This is a hard thing to wrap "your" (as well as "my") normal CPP and MRSS around—that after death there is nothing but upside.

 

        Conjecture this reasoning polypasicly (think on it now, and Go On thinking about it sometime later):

        1.  The I'm has difficulties thinking of itself in the third-person.

 

        2.  The mind of the person reading these words has difficulties thinking in third-person.

 

        To be 'switched on' correctly (another metaphor!) either one of—or some combination of these—are, understood to not be false (which, in this instance, is not the same as 'true'):

 

                I need to think of myself in first-person.

 

                I need to think of everything I am in third-person (omni-present and omniscient pov).

                You need to think of yourself in second person (always-listening or other-camera pov).

 

the rabbit-hole's a little deeper:

Memento Mori (from stoicism)

 

 Sisyphus (from existentialism)

Why Conscientious Vermonter's Have Five Seasons

 

          There is a distinction (a valuable one) to be made between a Starling and a Grackle.  Many, who maintain a bird feeder between stick season and mud season, know what I mean.

          Starlings are aggressively-assertive or assertively-aggressive bullies, and are—relative to most other songbirds—unattractive, in their tweedy speckled brown; but their unique quality of songs and calls are both distinct and wonderfully melodious.

 

          Grackles proudly glide thru branches to gracefully wait their turn, and they are beautifully sleek with iridescent blue-to-black sheen (visible close-up in direct sunlight); but they only possess a limited and unimaginative volley of calls without melody.

 

          Vermont's Stick Season begins after all the colorful leaves have fallen and ends with the first Autumnal snowfall (usually between mid-October and early December).  Snow-melt combined with Spring rains causes Mud Season, which ends when Spring's flowers begin to bud; timing varies with ground thaw, but usually it begins late-February or March and ends mid-April (occasionally as late as May).

 

          The reason for the regional seasonal distinctions are simple:  In the mind of many Vermonters—Summer, Autumn, Winter and Spring are all beautiful—however, Mud Season and Stick Season are less-so or not at all.

 

          I take down bird and critter feeders after Mud Season and put them back up when Stick Season arrives as the seeds, bugs, and natural food sources become scarce.  The exception is a Hummingbird feeder, which goes out after the last night-freeze of Spring and comes down before the first night-freeze of Autumn.

 

          In a similar-but-different routine:  I remove the MEDITATION sign from my front door after I finish.  Although—because of headphones—I wouldn't hear a Grackle ring the bell or a Starling shout, pound, and rattle the knob.  I do it to be conscientious of those who might-possibly, "see a car, know I'm home, don't find me in the yard with the cats, and become unnecessarily concerned". 

 

more:

 

critter story (squirrels)

 

critter story (bear)

 

conscientiousness (in detail)

I Know Eye Aym - But Whotter Ewe? (consciousness)

 

The past does not exist—for, by its definition—it is merely a record of what once happened (even if that record is merely a mental remembrance of a soon-to-be-forgotten something from a few seconds ago); and the future, also, is equally nonexistent, no-matter that you wrote down an agenda or list of goals to remind you, and no matter that you began the last [pick as many as apply: lap, year, semester, contract, relationship, et cetera] with a belief that you would continue to accomplish the plan to complete it when the time came.  You only do what you do because you chose to, at the moment, during the moment.

The moment varies depending on relative perspective.  When I began meditation at 1300 and completed that session at 1500 I am now able to consider those were, collectively: two-hours of moments . . . but it seems more accurate (to me) to be a single moment-in-entirety; a two-hour event which contained one long moment (and inhabits a single, but complexly-jammed-with-information event of recollection, which I was vaguely aware of for a euphoric amount of "walking-along-a-ridgeline-never-climbing-cliffs-enjoying-beautiful-plateaus" kind of thing).  Which is all that those memories of thoughts jangling around in emotions are able to relay to the me-part of me, which holds in the cubbyhole labelled 'memories of meditation'.  All this is now something which happened behind my closed eyes.  Only.  Existed for me, only.  Invisible forever.  Never real.  And there's the whole point!  If the only things which are real are those things a live person can hold in their hand . . . what is this digital-only essay of my story's relationship to you-the-reader?  Annnnd.  What is its actual relationship with me? 

And when I decided to begin a (this) new paragraph, instead of just including this information in a third sentence of the last paragraph, that moment lasted less than a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of a second before I tapped the return key with the ring-finger of my right hand.  To consider the current moment which you are experiencing, one must first choose to do so.  My suggestion (mini challenge!) is that at the end of this paragraph you close your eyes and listen to any sounds which you might be able to hear.  While listening, inhale in order to pay attention to any scents available to be identified.  This should take you no less than a ten breath-cycle, but it will take as long as you wish (obviously).

 

The moments we decide to not think about anything—except the space between our memories and plans; outside of our fantasies and wishful dreams; not thinking only letting time happen while maintaining conscious attention on the null everything outside of the part that listens and smells—that is what it means to be 'being'.  Once you wonder-conclude if-that lapse of breaths and scents and sounds and clicks of the clock in the next room, also, maybe-does not exist.

 

Your, my, every brain's of every living thing's memory of past moments (and that includes every memory of planning things for the future) are only thoughts and are not ever "real".  The fraction of a moment (no matter how long it feels in our memory) only exists in our memory.  We only perceive the event after it is finished being perceived.

 

I chose to snap my fingers.  I pressed an index finger and thumb of my dominant hand together with sufficient pressure to cause the index finger to accelerate-slip off the thumb and slap into my palm which caused a clicking sound.  I remember doing it.  I also remember feeling the tightening of hand and finger muscles, the slight vibration of stinging skin-contact, and a slight creak in my elbow.  Those things did happen.  In my mind.  I am conscious of all of the above; I am certain of that because I am able to plan an event as simple as a finger-snap, and execute that plan, and remember its effects.  Because of all that I am told by other thinkers that I am an independent agent.  A person who thinks and acts with free will.

 

If:  consciousness is everything; and the ability to take advantage of the slow awareness of the experience of the linked-together-moments, so-as-to be able to continue to survive (eat, sleep, procreate) is the "snake-eating-its-own-tail" reason/purpose for it-all.

 

Then:  consciousness (of every energy within all of consciousness) is all that there is; and it is, as well, the 'reason why' all of the past (singular) and all the future (singular) have been taken advantage-of and for-granted.

This feels like a paradox.  Even though it sounds like the seconds on the wall clock and smells of the candle at my side.

Birthday Gerund: "Me Myself and I-ing"

 

. . . Measure your future life in twenty-year potentialities.  Your second twenty years(³) is when you refine yourself and make yourself better at what you've begun.  Your third twenty years is when you either rebuild yourself from your mistakes, continue to make bigger mistakes, or strive to teach yourself how to set, and efficiently accomplish, harder goals.  Your last twenty years is for teaching others what you learned and preparing your happy-content self for the inevitable aging and death.

        When writing this footnote in a letter to Dre, I realized-as-each finger tapped out the next word, I was giving myself a snapshot of advice.  Advice based on myself.  My self.  The portion of me who is not ego.  

        The first time I recall realizing that part of me existed was when I came out of a daydream.  It feels in my memory that the sun on my face had caused my eyes to shut rather than continue to squint down the slope of the hill against the harsh sun at my squealing and chattering classmates.  I dreamed, but not completely without intention.  The dream's content was apparently unimportant, even then.  The purpose—everyone is trying to make themselves smile at recess—is this, this is something I can do for me.  Us.  For us.  To myself.

        The basis of these ideas, at the time, were sprouting from the collective classmates (which included me) coming to terms with the phrase "me, myself, and I"—imagined inward about a place where someone could feel relaxed and comfortable and warm (without having to chase or be chased, tether-ball or swings, tease or be teased).  I finished the daydream as the bell rung us in.  I drifted back to my seat in contentment.

        I know that I daydreamed before then, because the daydream was not an unfamiliar act; but this specific daydream handed me a key.  The first part of "me, myself, and I" was the part who sat by myself at recess.  The last part of "me, myself, and I" was the drive to listen inside, because I'm no different than that horde (which definitely includes those down there who are so obviously pretending to teach). 

        The key.  It was the ability to remember.  Remember that daydreaming exists on my "things available to do today" list.  If you like to play disc golf, but never go anymore; maybe it is simply because you have taken it off your list.  If you want to play disc golf, set out your discs!  Remind yourself.  Maybe you should look at your mental key-ring and see if you like playing or if you "liked" playing.

        There are things that part of "me, myself, and I" once did habitually for pleasure-based-reasons but that part of myself only exists in memories.  I chose to remove that key from my key-ring.  Maybe because I am only capable of comfortably carring a specific number of keys in my mental pocket.  Or (also, maybe) I do not want to carry more than a certain number of keys because increasing the size of my key-ring does not result in an increase in the number of hours in my day.

        I've never taken the daydream-key off.  Not since I got it in fifth grade.

        Which was when I began second twenty years-ing (not "adulting" yet, at 10).  But that definitely was me starting to "refine myself and make myself better."  My third twenty years did not begin until I retired from the military (at 43).  Occasionally, it feels like I've already begun my fourth twenty years; but this me (now 64) I know that, forest-for-the-trees, I am unsure this is accurate.  Maybe I'm still rebuilding.  It certainly seems accomplishing harder goals with more efficiency is going on in the background as well as the foreground. 

rabbit-hole-ing:

Gerund-ing

Ad-vice-ing or Advising?

thinking of engaging with myself while dreaming

Sisyphus Mountain Time

         Albert Camus suggested readers 'imagine Sisyphus happy,' as the mythical character's constant bolder-up-a-mountain exertion seems to, otherwise, be futile.

        The cruelly-evil King Sisyphus (who was cunning enough to successfully trick death a few times) is eventually sentenced by the gods to an eternity in hell, where his human muscles never stop exerting against gravity and his human mind knows that there is no finish line.  All drudgery.  No goal.

        And, one might wonder:  why the ancient Greek writer of this allegory did not have Zeus creating an infinitely endless mountain for Sisyphus to roll a bolder ever upwards?  One might reasonably assume it to be because reaching an apex appears to be "accomplishment of a goal."  With the real punishment occurring when he watches the bolder crash into the valley-bottom, him having to descend after it, and him resuming this endless-task at its starting point, over-and-over, for eternity; that might prohibit him from using the simple mental trickery all humans commonly use to delude themselves.  Right?

        This could be the "hidden crux" of this entire parable, don't you think?  Since Sisyphus had been cunning enough to "trick the gods, and even death" a few times, obviously the ancient Greek gods did not possess an ability to read King Sisyphus' mind or to listen-in on his every conversation.  Otherwise, they would have known (when he told his wife to leave his dead body in the town's public square) that his intent—to request permission for a brief pop-back to the living world to remind his wife to bury his body—was just another ruse. 

        So, Sisyphus is eventually caught and required to toil in hell.  Endlessly straining without a reason; fully aware that his strife serves no purpose.  "Imagine Sisyphus happy," is Camus pointing out how Sisyphus would still be capable of tricking the gods.  Because all humans create our own happiness, daily, even when we are aware of the absurdity.  

        It would be absurd to purchase, construct, maintain, and stock a bird-feeder in your yard.  Just to re-stock it.  It would be absurd to rent your workweek to an employer for decades.  Just to retire.  It would be absurd to (fill in the verb and direct-object of this sentence).  Just to end this paragraph.

        Unless it makes you happy.  

        So is the solution as simple as:  Pretend to be happy?

        No—not in the commonly-understood context of pretend.  But.  Imagine Sisyphus deciding to make a game out of his task.  He visually plots-out a reasonably easy path on the side of the mountain immediately ahead of him; he chooses the best positions to put his hands on the bolder; he tries to avoid places where he has previously lost his grip.  And, when he doesn't lose his grip, he feels the simple pleasure of choosing correctly.  When he felt the bolder teetering on the edge of an outcropping and exerted his push in the correct direction to be able to visually plot-out the next portion of the path ahead—he has become aware that he just accomplished the mental task he had chosen for himself in that moment.  And that momentary success would make him feel pleasure.

        Millions upon billions of pleasantly-and-happily-deluded humans continuously perform their Sisyphean-tasks; no-matter if they are fully aware of the pointlessness of it all or if they are blindly, blissfully, unaware.  Those who have found a way to be happy doing it (no matter what it is) are those who have discovered how to mentally create for themselves: "small pleasures."

        Those with a sufficient number of recent small pleasures (relative to their remembered past experiences) possess an increase in their overall baseline happiness.

        Those who focus on the mundane labor, the physical discomfort, the futility, or think "everything-dies-so-why-should-I-go-on?" are choosing to not decide to find any small pleasures for themselves.

        Choose for yourself.

        I choose to spend a small percentage of my time (and retirement pension) re-stocking my bird-feeders.  It brings small pleasure. 

        

more choices:

choose to not have regrets

 

choose to not be confused

 

how to decide if a military job is right for you

(mandatory annual cat pic) Pearl, 1 year old

 

Concrete grey on raw-pine brown

Pearl they say with never a frown

Fixed jade gaze near-silent clown

Cecil unfazed, by new kit in town

Angry Amazon Tale (but it works great)

          For those who enjoy Amazon Tales, this episode is an unusual.  One year ago, I purchased a cheap space heater and gave it this two-star review:

Impossible to assemble (but works great)

Reviewed in the United States 🇺🇸 on January 26, 2022 

Verified Purchase 

Impossible to attach screw-in plastic legs because the guide-pins and hook-slots absolutely can not line-up with the metal housing (and removing the guide-pins causes the brittle plastic to shatter). The plastic handle, which requires complete disassembly of the metal housing to attach, is either designed to rattle and not fit tightly on purpose - or - these issues are systemic throughout the heater and it will soon stop working. Please note: This space heater works wonderfully without legs and without a handle (as long as you always place it on a surface that will not catch on fire because the reason for the legs is to help keep the heat from melting your carpet and don't pick it up until it has had ample time to cool down because the reason for the plastic handle is to prevent you from burning yourself).

 

          I assumed they sent me legs/handle from a different model; and decided not to go thru the hassle of returning when this $25 heater worked fine propped on a metal cookie tin.  I received the following message today:

 

           The order and review are accurate, albeit I did not follow the link because maybe this was a new way to spread a virus.

 

          Is this the absolute best way to drive an Amazon competitor out of business?  Or, maybe, this was written by a disgruntled ex-employee?  The actual company would never (or would they).

more Amazon Tales:

An Amazon God Has Spoken

 

Wading In The Amazon

 

Amazon Feedback

Agatha 'Aggie' 2002 - 2022

 

 

 

 

 

Her last exhale—after twenty years of them—seemed the easiest one, for her

Assuaging her, until the last; I'm now in need of some of that assuaging, for me

        

My awareness of her absence echoes like a silent alarm from an unexpected vacancy just within earshot (and, paradoxically, known-about for years)

 

I'm curiously-glad the ground is frozen; postponing digging the grave is a whole huge, tiny grey blessing (for next year)

also featuring:

2019 Xmas pic

 

One Year Ago (featurette)

Goodbye to the last - Hello to the next one

        Happy New Year Mr Glines!  I'm a long time reader, first time caller...erm...commenter who's hoping to get some long term broad-stroke life advice.

        I have yet to decide what to do after I graduate.  Everyone I don't hate has told me to 'find something I enjoy' but they've not made suggestions.  It may seem like they want me to decide for myself, but I've already seen what most've done to others (or said about them) when they were trying to find things out for themselves and then failed.  I can't promise I'll follow your advice, but I definitely will consider it.

Seriously,

Andrea

        Andrea,

        Let me begin by explaining everyone-you-don't-hate's rationale.  E-y-d-h is only familiar with the meandering route their path took them to get where they are today.  If they dislike where they are (or how they got there) they may be unwilling to offer advice—even of the broad-stroke kind—in fear that you might repeat their mistakes.  Just because e-y-d-h appears to be (or says they are) happy, does not mean they are or were.  Accomplishing a steady-state of being happy should be everyone's ultimate goal.  Most of e-y-d-h never mention it because they either think it "goes without saying" or they survived their entire lives without experiencing it in sufficient quality or quantity and think it "doesn't actually exist".

        My first recommendation (no matter your age, personality, or life situation) is:  Teach yourself how to love and be loved by a pet of your choosing.  The last phrase—of your choosing—is the most important.  Devote quality hours out of your day (every day, without exception) to playing, cuddling, grooming, training, pampering, and just spending time with your chosen pet.  If you think you love your pet, and they love you, but you might allow a situation, person, or circumstance to come between or separate you?  You still have much to learn about basic friendship.  You can't really love until you are best of friends; and true friendship trusts nothing could come between them.  Once comfortably devoted to a pet, try platonic adult friendship with a human(⁰). 

        Secondly, you need to teach yourself how to set achievable goals for yourself.  The key word in that sentence is achievable.   Anyone and everyone can set unrealistic goals; others do it every year when making New Year resolutions(¹).  Set a small goal.  Something like: run a mile without stopping; or join a local group; or learn to play an instrument (et cetera).  The only way to determine if your goal was an achievable one?  When you are able to set another one, which expands on the first.  Like: run two nonstop miles; or fully participate in an activity decided by that group; or play an entire song of your choosing (et cetera).

        Determine what level of importance you desire to place on your long-term financial wealth.  It takes a specific mindset to value the accumulation of wealth for its own sake(²).  If you determine that you desire wealth more than other qualities, a college education in a money-making field should become your immediate short-term goal.

        Measure your future life in twenty-year potentialities.  Your second twenty years(³) is when you refine yourself and make yourself better at what you've begun.  Your third twenty years is when you either rebuild yourself from your mistakes, continue to make bigger mistakes, or strive to teach yourself how to set, and efficiently accomplish, harder goals.  Your last twenty years is for teaching others what you learned and preparing your happy-content self for the inevitable aging and death.

        Learn how to determine when you are satisfied with what you've attained.  No one strives to be unhappy.  No one who is absolutely happy is constantly stressed.  Constantly striving, without being aware what constitutes a sufficient amount to be comfortable(⁴), will always result in an ever-escalating amount of stress.  That "treadmill loop" is the saddest way to kill yourself. 

        Respectfully,

        Veach

(⁴)  This "sufficiency" can-and-should-be adjusted as your life circumstances expand and contract.  It's important to be aware of your comfort in a studio apartment, but essential to know when a two-bedroom becomes the new "sufficient amount."  And, most of all, it is crucial to remain alert to when returning to the studio will reduce stress (and make you more comfortable).

(³)  Your second twenty years will begin once you are adulting full-time, independent of the calendar, living conditions, or family relationships.  Some "old people" learn (decades too late) that they are still not able to refine themselves on their own terms; while some "teenagers" discover they have been refining themselves on their own terms for years. 

(²)  "For its own sake" is a red-flag phrase.  It is equivalent to "for no reason."  You should do everything (which takes some significant amount of time and effort to accomplish) for clearly identifiable-to-you and clearly important-to-you reasons.  Getting more money for money's sake is hording.  Gaining knowledge for knowledge's sake is time wasting.  The only exception is being happy for happiness's sake.   

(¹)  Never "play with" making goals.  Your subconscious remembers every time you fail-to-achieve and it uses guilt and shame to try to encourage you to succeed; even if you thought you were only half-heartily joking when you said, "I'm, finally, going to write that novel this year!"—your subconscious heard you planning a goal and now it (you) will make you feel bad when you don't do it. 

(⁰)  Another adult human who also loves pets.  This advice is my first, because it is the most important.  People who don't like pets should only become friends with others of their ilk. 

for other Andrea's:

talking about others 'behind their back'

 Military Police story (99% true)

a month of songs that make you think

semblance of balance

 

  

    I don't know the name of the piece, or the artist, if that's what you mean.  If you meant to say, why'd I pay to stare at it - I think it's because it encourages me to try to understand visual tension.  

 

    What artsy-fartsy site have you been reading?

 

    The kind that you're lifetime blocked from commenting on.

 

    Ok, k, how'd you say it?  No.  Really.  Sincerity, now.  If you can explain that collection of pixels to MY brain, and I'm willing to giveit a try, why not?   Don't scowl.  I know I'm an asshat.  So, why not prove I'm an incurable one?

 

    Because explaining what happens in my brain when I interpret Portuguese into English requires the person I'm explaining the translation process to, to be capable of thinking in - in, analogies.  Which you're about to prove with a question.

 

    I didn't know you could speak a foreign language!  You speak Portuguese?  Ohh.  Z'a joke.  Now wha'd I say? 

 

    The background contains a smudge of clouds, tree branches in varied states of fall, and a shadowed window frame above a rain-stained sill.  Close-up.  Jewelers block behaving as pedestal for an onyx sculpture, all balanced upon a white near-sphere.  The gravity is being. . .

                                            . . .Being shown!  These real pixels show, in an abstract concept selfie way, what the abstract concept of 'gravity' looks like to my Portuguese-to-English translation subprogram.

 

    And the me you're talking to right now, understands it so well, that it thinks,"It's so obvious, of course it's gravity!"  That vibration causes tension behind my eyes because I think, "nobody understands gravity," and then I see this picture depicting gravitational results and I think to myself, "Cept this artist who hates, probably hates, the phrase artsy-fartsy."

 

 

 

graduate to the next level:

 

transliteration (of art) to granular

 

memory tool for master's

Can pareidolia be taught?

 

            vaguely misplaced tin

            brush painted red, twenty-three

            hike hike hikin me

            some believe it in

            pairs of chromosomes, they see

            like like likin thee

            tip my head and grin

            pareidolia blessed, two lucky he

            cowgirlin th' three

tappin into a similar sap:

paper versus digital

 

pareidolia apophenia

E F Noël (spelled like the word ELF without an L)

          Ask yourself, "Where does food come from."  Select the best answer:

                    A)  The refrigerator.

                    B)  A grocery store.

 

                    C)  Industrial farms, backyard gardens, et cetera.

 

                    D)  The Earth-Sun biome (we are food).

 

                    E)  Non-dual "energy" [energy = best metaphor] comprises every thing.

 

          Your answer indicates your present level of mental-awareness:

 

          All modern-humans, with a basic language capability, begin at the Infant-stage, and assume food originates in their care-giver's kitchen.

 

          At some point, growing humans pay attention to their care-giver while they shop and stock the pantry, subsequently, the juvenile-stage (¹) is attained.

 

          Upon receiving additional knowledge, growing humans become aware of where commercial stores obtain products; some of them learn enough to qualify as Callow-stage (²).

 

          Once abstract-concepts are enthusiastically learned and comprehended (of which, the human microbiome is just one example) the Mature-stage (³) is probable,  However, some "Early-Mature-stage" could revert (especially if the Savvy-stage of emotional development has not yet been reached).

 

          Mature-Savvy humans possess the mental-emotional capacity for the Wise-stage once "Self-Awareness of Self" is experienced (not merely comprehended). 

                    One (of many) "Self-Awareness of Self" recipe-formulas:  

 

                    ◘  Automatic:  Every Self began to fabricate itself, before the Infant-stage, as an automatic drive to survive.   

 

                    ◘  Chemicals:  Spoken language is not a prerequisite to begin remembering behaviors which increase comfort/pleasure-chemicals and reduce discomfort/pain-chemicals.

 

                    ◘  Composite:  The continuing formation of "mental sticky-notes"—throughout all stages of the Self's mental-emotional life—result in a composite of every concept/idea/fear, intermingled with the most-often recalled values/beliefs/desires.

 

                    ◘  Terminate:  The biological "machine-body" behaves in a range from highly-maintained, thru minimally-maintained, to non-maintained (or can even be sacrificed) as the automatic-drive, pleasure/pain-chemicals, and composite of sticky-notes direct the Self (ego) to keep the body alive in order to keep the self alive.

                    ◘  Test Angle:  Fasting tests the automatic drive to consume fuel; exercise and ice-showers test discomfort chemicals; actively contemplating irrational-fears, illogical-beliefs, and undesired-addictions test composited decisions and allow the removal (or addition) of sticky notes.

 

          Once aware of the fabricated attitude-behavior of one's Self, it is possible to filter thoughts as they are conceived; for example:

                    Thought:  *boredom*

                    Self-aware reply:  (automatic dip in brain-chemical urging entertainment - will subside).

                    Thought:  *hungry*  

                    Self-aware reply:  (preconditioned starvation-response when reserve fuel brought online - disregard - use rarely utilized reserves)

                    Thought:  *alert! unfinished chores*  

                    Self-aware reply:  (override - place mental health reminder as current top-priority)

                    Thought:  *unfamiliar territory! confusion imminent!*

                    Self-aware reply:  (fear of change is based on childhood trauma - irrational to maintain sticky note - investigating new terrain only results in more efficient pathways)

                    Thought:  *¡caution! new belief - requires admission of fallibility - ego dislikes embarrassment caused by "being wrong"*

                    Self-aware reply:  (growth is progress - adherence to faulty beliefs is stagnation - ¡new value! prioritize embracing fallibility over maintaining hypocrisy)

          Once aware of the Self—with no past-memory-concepts or future-expectation-plans acting in the roles of lifeguard or governor—exploration of the distinction between self and non-self is not realized as an abstract thought (like a daydream of a hike in the woods), but is understood as an event, experienced in the same manner as a hike in the woods.

 

          However, evaluation of the "non-self experience"—during the Early-Wise-stage(⁴)—requires the Self to reflect on what it experienced after the experienced event is complete. 

 

 

(¹)  Looking forward into future stages is not possible.  (Similar to the thought-experiment, "If you had a time-machine, what would you say to your future-self?")  Those in the Infant-stage can be told that food comes from a grocery store (or watch films depicting shoppers shopping) but, until they have experienced grocery shopping, they can not advance to Juvenile-stage. 

 

(²)  Individuals at Callow-stage (who may refuse to realize or admit they are not yet mature) say-to-themselves, "I know all about biomes!"  Both the answers and the question, "Where does food come from" are metaphors.  Mature-stage requires enthusiastic learning and complete understanding of any and all abstract concepts as the Self becomes aware of them.

 

(³)  Individuals who are Mature-stage recognize their development from reflecting on their experiences.  Nonetheless, some may claim their stage is the apex, deny the existence of additional stages, or denigrate the idea that realizing the true nature of Self leads to consciousness of the non-self.  At every stage, some assume they reached the apex in possible mental-awareness, until looking backward reveals that their previously-held mental-awareness was a stepping-stone.

 

(⁴)  Currently in the Early-Wise-stage, I have come to understand—from reading practiced Wise-Waldo level individuals—that it should, eventually, become possible to communicate non-self experiences in real-time, as they happen.  I will address that when/if it happens to me.  Also, if Wise-stage is not an apex (as proposed by the authors of Spiral Dynamics) that could only be confirmed with future empirical knowledge (or aforementioned time-machine).

 

Footnote under the footnotes:  The title of this essay, and the attached artwork, E F Noël (spelled like the word ELF without an L), is intended to promote discussion and act as an anchor-point for future use. 

Want to Go On Reading?

most crucial book on the subject

 

actively-contemplate yourself with this self-evaluation

 

100-minute music quiz to understand your self-programming

Waldo's Possess Empatheticonscientiousness (Go On Lecture #2)

 

     Em●path●etic␣Con●sci●ent●ious●ness — pronounced:  emPA-thet-tic-Kon-SHE-en-Shhuss-nis

 

 Con●sci●ent●ious●ness

●scient●    In the body of a word, scient is defined as:  "knowing, or having awareness of, being morally knowledgeable—or practicing—such, with care and diligence".

 

Con●           The prefix con indicates the word's definition includes: "together or with".

 

●ious        The first-suffix ious indicates an adjectival-form and adds: "possessing or full-of" to the word's definition.

 

●ness        The second-suffix ness alters the adjective into an abstract noun while adding: "exemplifying a quality or state" to it's definition.

Conscientiousness—similar to the word conscience—is defined:  one who diligently possesses a knowledgeable state of moral awareness (possesses a conscience).

 

          Tautologically (in it's logic form) it is assumed or "taken as a given" that every human is:  Conscious of their own conscientious behaviors and realize the lack-thereof in other humans by simply using self-comparison.  This pre-assumes (not to be confused with presumes) everyone is already conscious of their own general, standard-operating-procedure, thought processes, and have not left the machine operating as it was programmed during its gestation period, with its decision-making-autopilot stuck in the 'On' position.

          Additionally, it is assumed (by many-millions of people smarter than I am) that almost all living organisms have no biological need, nor ability, to grow a conscience because they further assume humans are the only conscious organisms to have ever existed.   As a consequence of these collective widespread assumptions, scientists and philosophers alike, do not expect (nor look for) conscientious behaviors, nor empathetic emotions, in non-human organisms(¹).

 

           I have experienced a life-long struggle with the Where's-Waldo-esque challenge of finding people who actually possess a fully-functioning conscience, and who aren't just pretending when the cameras are rolling.  Equally important, in my Waldo-challenge, is determining who is ready, willing, and able to empathize if-and-when an occasion arises to utilize that emotional behavior.  From my vantage point, the majority of modern-humans prefer to (reluctant-hurriedly) put on a red-and-white striped hat only when-and-if they think pretending to appear to possess empatheticonscientiousness might "smooth out" some unexpected confrontation (which they've stumbled across on their overly crowded, self-obsessed, path between birth and death).

 

          I've spent almost five decades surgically removing, ex-communicating, ghosting, divorcing, and breaking-up-with people who possessed various-levels of expertise in how to wear a Where's Waldo costume, and almost an equal number of decades failing-at (while occasionally succeeding-in) cultivating strong trust-worthy friendships, with a few who have real empatheticonscientious(²).

My latest Where's Waldo Costume "reveal":

          A close-acquaintance—who my wife and I shared casual conversations with for over a dozen years—joined us on our destination vacation.  After we spent a good day-and-a-half catching up and sight-seeing together, we all went to sleep much later than expected on our second night.

 

          Three Hours Lay-ter:  Our close-acquaintance's phone emitted a 'text incoming tone' causing my wife and I to wake up.  After the tone happened again (and again) I called-out to our close-acquaintance to wake up.  They did not.  I elevated my voice.  They still didn't.  I went into the next room, shook them awake, informed them that their phone kept waking us up, and asked them to quiet it.  They did not.

 

          Realizing that I was now 'awake-awake' I got a book and a place where my light wouldn't disturb the others.

 

          Four More Hours Lay-ter:  Our close-acquaintance says 'good-morning' and I inform them that I had been awake for the last four hours.  They asked, 'why'?  This was a strong indicator that they forgot to bring their Where's Waldo costume (which was something I pretended not to notice when they "forgot their wallet" the previous day).  Hoping their next answer was a baffled 'no', I asked if they recalled that I woke them at 0430 because of their phone.  'Yes' was their reply.  

 

          My acquaintance then attempted to justify their decision to not quiet their phone, with a variety of excuses.  They opened with the 'blame gambit' (classic gaslighting):  "But, you started to hand me the phone but, instead, set it down on the table!"  One of their next moves proved their unflagging-lack of conscientiousness:  "If you were someone who owned a smart phone, you wouldn't've been bothered by notification-bubble sounds!  (This clumsy shame-blaming attempt, caused me to smirk in the same manner they were smirking.)

 

          Metaphorically requesting they put on a red-and-white striped hat, I politely-but-sternly said, "Now isn't the time for excuses or for blaming light-sleepers.  Now is the time for apologies.  Your phone woke us up.  I brought it to your attention.  You chose NOT to quiet it."

 

          Fumbling with the Waldo-hat, they stammer-replied, "I'm apologizing.  This is me apologizing.  Right now."  All of their body-language—smirk in mouth's corners; anger in brow-scowl; impatient swing of arms, pointing finger, and pacing gait—combined with their obvious avoidance of sorry, brought into a spotlight:  I'd (yet again) been duped by someone with no empathy and without a conscience.  So, I responded with, "You need to tell your face!"

 

          Staring down at me, book still in my lap, frustration coalesced into stern decisiveness on my acquaintance's face.  (Apparently, so unfamiliar with the traits instilled by a conscience, they couldn't fake it.)  They then asked, in a very officious tone-of-voice, if I would allow them to deliver closing-arguments without interruption.  I sternly replied, (in my decades-long-unused interrogator addressing a suspect tone-of-voice) "Be careful what words you choose to say next."

 

          After listening to a dry summation of previously-stated excuses, I told the person I was once acquainted with that they needed to leave.  They then—and only then—allowed a brief-slip in their decisive-mask to expose their confused inner-workings; they muttered, "n'...wai-wha?...at's not...", which I put-down with one of my rare stares(³).

This Chart's Explanation Will Definitely Go On The Quiz:

 

          For the benefit of providing the most-complete instruction to listeners/readers of all ages, who are time-travelling forward—one-day-into-their-future, every 24-hours—somewhere between their own birth 👶 and their own death 💀; who currently-realize their current-day's mental capacity can be gauged to exist somewhere along the - Infantile - Juvenile - Callow - Mature - Wise - range of mental abilities; who also should be able to estimate their current emotional capacity somewhere on the - Naïve - Irrational - Obtuse - Savvy - Waldo - emotional spectrum . . . accordingly . . . this is how I think someone with empathy and a conscience would have behaved in the above scenario:

 

          "Fuck Man!  I remember that you woke me, but I must've fallen right back to sleep!  I am sooo sorry I forgot to shut my goddamned phone completely off!  Even on fucking vacation, I can't go to sleep without my dopamine-drip notification tone.  Completely my bad!  What can I do to make up for my mistake?  Why don't I take us all out for breakfast and then you can come back and nap while I and my phone go-off-quietly somewhere out of earshot?"

 

          For mentally-emotionally impaired readers/listeners, who might be trying to learn how to wear a Where's-Waldo costume (so they might become better at pretending to have empathy/a conscience) this is how someone who wished to appear to possess empathetic traits or pretend to have a conscience might have behaved:

 

          Afternoon-text to my wife's smart phone:  | checked into local motel | apology lobster? | my treat | Lobster Pound | 7pm tonight | still friends? |

 

Of Course, The Term Empatheticonscientiousness is a human-construct:

 

          "Human construct" is a term used (more often, in a derisively pedantic-tone-of-voice) when discussing/explaining human reproductive organs ("born with"); growth-and-reproductive hormones ("matured into"); and our various different/differing sexual desires—to others, as well as ourselves ("environmentally-conditioned and/or self-programmed").   Consequently, the phrase gender is a human construct is as over-used as it is under-understood (I twisted this paragraph like a pretzel so I could use that last hyphenated word and I feel so proud of myself, that I've taken this parenthetical sentence to pat myself on the back *pat-pat*.)

 

          For as long as they have considered themselves civilized (the most constructed term of all), humans have encouraged others to become "more civilized" in their deceptive world of barbarians, charlatans, con-artists, and marketing specialists.  To that end, of course, the humans who refer to themselves as "the most civilized" are those who behave in the most polite manner to those-others who alter their behavior to "become more civilized".   Explained in another way:  Members of a civilized society behave in as conscientious a manner as possible, as well as employ empathetic behavior, if-and-whenever it's called-for, because treating others as they desire to be treated is the golden-rule-ultimate-proof bedrock of polite-civilization!  True empathy and actual conscientiousness are possessed by only the most-polite, most-civilized, most-highly evolved organisms.  And those labels could have their own equivalent-labels for behaviors in every animal who ever existed.

 

          Also, of course, these terms are just human-constructed labels for specific brain/body chemicals which cause us to either feel certain emotion-on-demand "feelings" - or - they are labels for behaviors we learned to emulate or learned to not emulate (avoid), so as to not become demoted from 'close-friend' to 'former-acquaintance'.

Em●path●etic  

●path●     In the body of a word, path is defined as:  "suffering from an ailment of—or practicing—such a treatment".

 

Em●           A common variation of the prefix en, the prefix em indicates a definition includes: "to cause someone to be within a state of...".

●etic          The suffix etic indicates the adjectival-form adds: "pertaining to..." to the definition.

Empathetic—empathic, empathize, empathizing, empath—all bear similar definitions:   Causing oneself to practice suffering.

 

          I chose to use the older variant: Empathetic (rather than the more-modern Empathic) because the 'et' permits the core-word pathetic to be realized.  In English, referring to someone as "behaving pathetically" can be, and usually is, derisive.  However, pathetic is a "loaded word" which requires context to fully interpret. 

 "They pathetically rolled on the ground, screamed until out of breath, and beat at the earth"—needs more words to completely understand.

 

Add, "because they refused to take a nap."—and pathetically now has enough context to be interpreted with some accuracy.  Most readers choose to interpret this description as that of a ham-handed performance by someone (usually a child) attempting to elicit pity from an audience.     

However, if nap-refusal is replaced with: "after being informed that their entire family had just been murdered."—and, in this context, pathetically is interpreted very differently.  Most readers choose to interpret this description as that of legitimate mental-suffering by someone (usually an adult) unexpectedly caught in uncontrollable "throes of agony." 

 

While both child and adult are behaving in a pathetic manner, the over-actor shamefully begs for sympathy or empathy and the sole-survivor is rudderlessly inundated in an emotional tsunami they were never prepared for.  You—the audience—must pick who you will console.  One?  Both?  Neither?  [Do it now.] 

 

An overt decision is required when most people decide to express empathy.  While almost anyone's attention can be snagged by the specific tone and pitch of a scream, mature-savvy adults interpret (within seconds or even microseconds) the source/scene/context and decide to either "switch-empathy-off" or "switch-empathy-on".

Exceptions:

 

                    Psychopaths—born emotionally-lacking the ability to empathize—don't consider their absence of empathy a lacking but, instead, a special skill or a superpower.  Incapable of being emotionally savvy, intelligent psychopaths become adept mimics.  In an attempt to blend-in with mature-savvy adults, psychopaths may pretend to switch-empathy-on.  {And the Golden Globe goes to...}

                     Sociopaths—scorn everyone who outwardly expresses any empathy—consider any mature-savvy adult who acts empathetic to be "gullible fools."  Conditioned to never differentiate between reluctant-nappers and sole-survivors, sociopaths believe all outward displays of emotion (which includes their own) are "fake antics of con-artists and crisis-actors." {And the award for best Alex Jones Info Wars tirade goes to...}

                     Narcissists—self-programmed (and raised) to fear any appearance of weakness—begin, in childhood, with simple displays of false-bravado.  Eventually deceptive attention-seeking becomes bald-faced lies becomes pathological manipulations, which can cause harm to anyone within a narcissist's sphere of influence.  By denying and concealing all of their own hypocritical behaviors from themselves, even the most intelligent narcissist's self-deluded fantasies solidify into unconscionably callous behaviors.  {And the trophy for the most 45th presidential behavior goes to...}(⁴).

                     Empaths—self-programmed to fear any appearance of callousness (the opposite of appearing weak)—begin, in childhood, with simple displays of earnest selflessness and animal/pet husbandry.  When empath's confuse their desire to never appear unkind with the impulse to act more benevolently, the result can be an overload of behaviorally-driven emotions (repressed as well as expressed).(⁵)

                     {Insert a touching-yet-informative story about Yetta B. Savvy who only adopts senior and terminally-ill rescue-animals because Yetta feels an incessant urge, which is best described as a "need-to-be-needed".  When Yetta doesn't have a constant, daily, target-source on which to focus their empathy, they feel constant anxiety, discomfort, insomnia, and depression.}

Differences between Sympathy and Empathy:

 

          Empathetic is derived from the English word Empathy, in the same manner as Sympathetic is derived from the word Sympathy.

 

          Sympathy indicates "compassionate words expressing an understood emotional state."  When one behaves sympathetically towards another, they (the person expressing the words) have previous experience with the causes of those emotions and wish the person they are communicating with, did not have to also-feel those emotions.  See also: commiserating; shared-feelings; "Sorry for your loss" or "I'm sorry you're feeling this way".

 

                    People express words of sympathy because they previously learned how to be conscientious (from watching others, or, from exchanging words-of-sorrow) and, then, came-to-realize they also felt better afterwards!  Appreciation is a mutual-purpose.  It "works both ways" in that when one feels appreciated they "instinctively" thank the person showing them appreciation. 

 

          Empathy involves "simultaneously experiencing the emotions of another."  When someone imagines themselves in the situation of another, and then subconsciously or intentionally alters their body language, posture, tone of voice, hand gestures, and breathing patterns, they (the person who is placing themselves in a receptive mental state) is attempting to "intuitively feel" the emotions of another.  Whether accomplished reflexively, or attempted by choice, this is behaving empathetically.  See also: shared tears-of-joy (weddings); shared tears-of-sorrow (funerals); parasympathetic emulation; mirroring; and reflexive Vagus nerve spasms (while watching horror films or seeing accidental injuries).

 

                    Empathetic emotions are expressed in the presence of someone currently in-need of consoling.  Sympathetic words are communicated to someone who either:  was never in need of consoling, is no longer in need of consoling, or is not present (and is being communicated using the written word).  

 

                    The common aphorism 'Misery Loves Company' may sound trite, but that simple sentence has survived because it's fundamentally true when it comes to empathy.  When experiencing agonizing physical pain, people are rarely capable of self-healing.  If that pain is excruciating mental anguish, people are less able to self-realize their depressed-beyond-helplessly-lost state.  One person with empathy can ameliorate another's suffering by just being present.

 

     Bringing this lecture to its most-must-needed-conclusion, I want to re-emphasize (to those in the lecture hall who need to hear something more than twice before devoting their full-attention) that emotional and mental strengths are absolutely not caused by the amount of time spent alive, they are also not strengthened by the same exercises.  While reading books may result in an increase of one's vocabulary, emotional growth and mental maturity is gained or strengthened by intentional contemplation, and re-enforced by communication with oneself (keeping a journal) or communicating with others (writing letters, articles, or essays).  So . . . the topic of your first essay should be derived from this lecture.  I will grade them as they arrive in my inbox.  

 

 

          (¹)  This is current scientific theory as it relates to biology.  It is also a snapshot of every branch of philosophy, which always attempts to address consciousness with the same bizarre starting point:  Humans are more evolved than all other animals.  Not to be outdone, this is a tenet of more than a few religions that proclaim:  Humans were created to have dominion over the lesser animals.

                All of these highly-over-educated and stupendously-under-educated people are guessing when they claim humans are the only biological entities capable of being conscious of their own consciousness.  Every person claiming to possess knowledge about consciousness is guilty of basing their spurious assumptions on one comically-inexcusable foundation:  Hubris.

                Using whatever logical-reasoning you have available, ask yourself:  What is more probable?  That we—H. Sapiens Sapiens—are the only species which evolved to possess consciousness, or that every living organism is conscious of their own consciousness?  Now erase the word living, because it's equally probable that:  Every building-block-of-energy, comprising all matter, are part of the same one consciousness.

                We—the most-advanced tool builders on this planet—could be the most stunted animal on earth (when measuring interpersonal-behaviors, driven by mental maturity), we could also be the most blithely unaware animal on earth (when measuring conscious-abilities, driven by emotional acuity).

               

          (²)  During brief casual conversations, I'm as blind to "character flaws" as anyone.  However, give me a few lengthy, deep, conversations (or a decade of casual conversations) and I can usually suss-out the scarred red flags of mental and emotional damage.   This is something I encourage myself to do, because I'm an over-sharer (Asperger's trait).  If I trust you, I blather-on too much.  Saying that I "tend to over-explain" is giving myself waaay too much credit.  I catch myself mid-tirade (less often than I would prefer) not knowing it has been shut-the-fuck-up-time for more than a minute! (this much-too-long lecture—in need of an elbow on my delete key—is a perfect example). 

               As a consequence of my lack of filter and broken emergency-shut-off button, I discovered—in my failures of youth—that it was crucially important to confide my rants only to those few people who I was confident I could trust.  Trial-and-error taught me how to identify empathy and conscientiousness, which (when both happen to be possessed by one person) signifies that I can completely open myself up and bare my deepest-darkest without fearing recrimination.  

 

         (³)  Intentional lack of eye contact, as previously explained, is my most-obvious Asperger's trait (from an outside-looking-in vantage point).  It's how I "turn-down the volume" of people's facial-body language which is always shouting for my attention, and interrupting my focus.  Also—because of a sensitivity to strong light (a trait people with Asperger's share with many who aren't autistic)—I'm a serious squinter.  Most people become so accustomed to my constant looking-away and squinting behaviors, they form the mental impression that I possess a shy, nonthreatening, demeanor.

               They aren't wrong.  But, ask yourself:  Have I chosen to adopt this demeanor?  Is it more likely that direct sunlight forces me to squint to reduce eye-pain?  Is it more-probable that I've evaluated the impulses, which drive my behaviors, and came to the realization that I need to "turn the volume down on other people's facial-body language" in order to not lose my train-of-thought?  Or, that I'm outright lying right-here-right-now?  [Which would make all of this what? . . . some elaborate ruse to justify my lack of eye-contact to myself and at-the-same-time the infinitesimally small number of readers who've made it to these jewel-encrusted depths (in both my reasoning-flex and this navel-gazing documentation of said reasoning-flex)?]   

                Rare Stare:  Not until my middle-age-years did I, accidentally, discover my rare-stare.  Although I've always reflexively stared at neutral surfaces—when in need of a visually-uninterrupted focus to formulate my important next thought—if I know I'm done talking (and, consequently, no longer need to think about what comes next) the urge to look at a neutral surface just disappears.  Consequently, I can directly experience the entire gestalt, face, eyes, and irises of whomever I'm facing at full-volume.  Because of this unforeseeable, outside-of-my-control, rarity, my relaxed but focused, pale, ice-grey gaze has a surprising intensity of intent.  I've been told, "it comes as a bit of a shock".  Decades ago, that trait was an advantage I may have used, to its desired effect, during interrogations. 

 

        (⁴)  Codified during a subjectively crucial time in every budding narcissist's emotionally stunted-development, between the infant's "everyone is my servant" phase and the "I'm me as you're he as you are me and we are all together" mature-savvy state (which narcissists never reach).

              The more a narcissist reinforces their fear of looking weak, the stronger and more-frequent their callous traits become.  These traits (both overtly-visible and covertly-camouflaged) directly correlate with the quantity of objectively visible 'affects,' interpreted by mature-savvy audiences as infantile behaviors.  Accordingly, the more-narcissistic one is, the less-often one chooses to "switch on" empathy (juveniles grow into empathy-hormones; infants have no empathy).

           

          (⁵)  Instilled during a subjectively crucial time in every budding empath's emotionally warped-development, long after the toddler's "all my servants are bad" phase; between the adolescent's "my jailer's no longer pretend to be servants" phase and the "I'll never become a bad servant" mature-but-not-yet-savvy steady-state (which empathic altruist's rarely grow out of).

               The more an empath has reinforced this fear in themselves the stronger their traits-of-empathy, which directly correlate with the amount of objectively visible 'affects' interpreted by mature-savvy audiences as doting-grandmother behaviors.  Accordingly, the more-empathic one is, the less-often one chooses to "switch off" empathy. 

 

if this was not enough reading:

 

first lecture in the Go On project

 

narcissisticly disordered 'nails'

 

pop quiz (with music)

 

Asperger's Details