s n a p p e r h e a d

Class Discussion—Related to Lecture #1

I want to express my welcome, to all students physically present, as well as those currently online and able to interact with the class on this rainy Vermont day, and to those auditing the class in my future, slash their present, who're unable to interact with the group. I thank you for your attention.

For this discussion, I'll be acting in a "master-of-ceremonies" role. My name is spelled: Veach Glines. For those of you unable to see the board, my name is spelled Vee as-in Victor; EACH as in beach (spelled like the ocean-shore not the beech tree); Gee as-in Golf, followed by LINES, like the phrase: 'I prefer coloring outside the lines'.

{intermittent squeak of dry erase marker}

When speaking about myself in third-person—something I find jarring to experience, so I rarely do it unless trying for cringe—I prefer he/him. I'm comfortable with the honorific, professor, albeit un-capitalized. Because capitalization is lost when speaking, please feel free to use any word you're comfortable with: sir, ma'am, asshat . . .

{audible chuckles}

Let's begin! For those present or logged-in: if you communicate via text, your preferred name will automatically appear before your typed-words. Languages other than English are translated by the AI and appear in English adjacent the <translated> notation. Communicating by voice is sourced as affiliated with your preferred name and also translated automatically by AI. If you're auditing and want to talk or text, please pre-identify with an acceptable gnome-de-plume (and, yes, I pronounced it Gnome—reasons may be explained later).

The topic for today's discussion was the title of my first lecture: Artists Are Terribly People. Anyone like to start us out?

{sound of collective shuffle-rustling}

Please, go ahead; in the wonderfully colorful sweater . . .

Hi, hello. I believe, little-p-professor, that this order, of these four words is the only order they could be placed, if the desired outcome was to encourage the most confusion.

I think that all possible placement-locations of the adverb Terribly, within the three-word sentence "Artists Are People," causes readers to ponder the use of that adverb. However, in this placement: Artists Are Terribly People, readers are faced with the additional consideration of wondering if the t-shirt designer accidentally printed the letter Y instead of the letter E. The word Terrible is an adjective. And adjective-immediately-before-a-noun is grammatically correct.

{as the relatively youthful, slight Midwestern-nasal, flat-but-charming voice expounded,

their words became visible on the text-screen

| Name: "Dre" |

| Preferences: they/them/student |

below a multicolored maple leaf with a plum-purple background

above a canary-yellow, capital letter, C}

Well, Dre. Thank you for this well-thought-out and concise interpretation. I see you've indicated 'student' as preferred honorific. Are you willing to explain? I try to ask pertinent questions as they arise.

Umm, well, I, um, thought about what title a gender-less person. Not gender-neutral. Who's only been a student for . . . for their-whole-life, might . . . consider . . . complimentary. To be . . . damn. Sorry. I should have thought about it more.

Dre, I'm not trying to embarrass or make light of a very-real conundrum. It's just a coincidence that you were "first at bat" and, accordingly, first to admit an unability to address the honorific-issue. I normally mention this during the introduction, but I forgot, so here goes!

Any instructor striving for objectivity—who takes the job of teaching seriously—should not need to explain the self-imposed requirement to treat every person with equal respect, and especially each of their students. I see from some of your faces that a detailed explanation may be helpful.

While referring to everyone by their preferred name may be simple, now that technology automatically puts it in our direct line-of-sight, the consequence of live-grading makes encouraging and discouraging students, without my words affecting their grade, very challenging.

The AI allows the optional use—and, more importantly, the non-use—of honorifics without allocating grade-weight. When I call someone by their preferred honorific, while I am saying, "keep up the good work," I'm also setting the stage for when I do not use some future person's honorific. Because when I avoid using a preferred honorific, that is how I informally suggest disapproval without the AI interpreting my bio-metrics and changing their grade.

Please consider my need to have a desired honorific for everyone as something as important or valuable to me, as hearing others use your preferred gender-less pronouns are to you. Until then, I would like your permission, Dre, to utilize the non-word 'eglaf ' as an honorific? Only after you update your profile, though, so we don't confuse the AI.

Thank you, Dre, you've excelled.

{the canary-yellow C became a florescent-green A

whispers rose and faded}

Ahh . . . I've received a text from someone who is auditing. Please bear with while I read; because obviously auto-posting to class screens from unregistered auditors would be an ill advised practice.

{slight-whispers}

I will read it, in a rather abridged form because of online-speak and slang. It is from an anonymous source.

It says, "The equivalent of a military rank or title of honor should suffice. The term crew-chief is a position of specific authority which delega . . . (think they meant 'designates') a position respected by all of the crew members as well as every senior officer who heavily relies on the person with that title. They are normally only called by the single honorific: Chief."

{murmurs and rustling}

I appreciate the auditor's suggestion, however, if Dre had written 'chief' as their preferred honorific, we'd be exactly where we are. I will decline to use certain words perceived as a legitimate title of honor by someone but possibly disparaging to another. And, chief is one such word. Similarly, I would only call someone Doctor if they were a PhD or MD.

Moving on. Dre's observation that Artist's Are Terribly People causes a mental hick-up with Artist's Are Terrible People. They also pointed out that the three other placements of the adverb may not provide sufficient context to completely understand those sentences, but also that those sentences would not be cause for too much more mental deliberation.

Someone else? Ah, OK. The person standing . . .

The concreteness of the words printed on the front of a shirt is not unimportant. If it were overheard or read in a text-conversation it would be less open for evaluation or consideration. Statements proclaimed on shirts are intended to be received like a brand by an audience. Maybe funny. Or ironic. An aphorism. Sometimes proclaimed in protest. But always intentionally crafted. Always created. Just like artwork is created. Artists Are Terribly People emblazoned on a shirt? That's a statement made by an artist! Begging to be evaluated.

{as the raspy voice shot-out its clipped sentences

their words became visible on the text-screen

| Name: "E F Noël" |

| Preferences: they/them/newt |

below an image of a orange salamander on a rock

above a canary-yellow, capital letter, C which transformed into an 2+}

Ahh. Very good. I wondered why you stood instead of raising your hand like the others. Clearly, Nude, you've already read the manual. I have nothing to add except an explanation about the grading system. Everyone begins at the median. Maximum is 9+. Minimum is 9-. Participation results in change.

Sir? S-Sir? I'm c-confused by this gra-grading system . . . I-I've never exp erienced re-real-time class-ss-room p-par ticipation scoring . . . W-why a r range of . . .a . . . ff . . . s-something like . . . thir thirty levels?

{as the speaker navigated sentences like a old truck

veering around potholes (and hitting some),

their words became visible on the text-screen

| Name: "Susan or Sue" |

| Preferences: she/her/blank |

below an image of the speaker in cap and gown

above a canary-yellow, capital letter, C}

Anyone wish to answer Susan or Sue's question? . . . Someone besides the four online auditors who have been permanently blocked. Five, ahh, six are now blocked. I thank Susan or Sue for asking. Some auditors are trolls who eventually identify themselves. It was bound to happen . . .

{adjacent Susan or Sue's thumbnail image,

the canary-yellow, capital letter, C}

became a C+}

A-anh ohh?!

{as her sighs and non-verbal utterances of disapproval continued

the canary-yellow, capital letter, C returned}

Wh-wh-aA Da fff . . .

{the canary-yellow, capital letter, C became a hard-orange D}

Someone should answer her question, if for no other reason than to save her . . . from herself.

The! Grading system is fake! Or . . . maybe, fabricated is better. Maybe crafted by little-p-professor, so that our attention is entertained. Hard to look away from a train-wreck . . . and,

{as the roller-coaster lower-register voice almost sang-out

with a noticeable degree of over-acting emphasis

their words became visible on the text-screen

| Name: "Randelf" |

| Preferences: she/her/nude |

below an image of a very recognizable rainbow

above a canary-yellow, capital letter, C as it snapped into a

very warning-orange D}

and . . . it definitely encourages participation! Little-p-professor said he was performing the role of master-of-ceremonies, didn't he? Well. Look at your emotions. Right now! Are you hoping I drop to an F? Schadenfreude much?

{the very warning-orange D gradually switched to bold electric B}

Are you to shallow to care? Who's able to realize that they are . . . WE are . . . All circus performers and while we desire to become so aware of our Self that we can . . . do Both things at once . . . Sit in the audience . . . and . . . watch . . . our own performance! Simultaneously? Well that's what I'm here for, anyway!

{which became a C+}

Nude! Well said. If only you answered Susan or Sue's question, though. She is confused about the "so many levels"? Oh, and Randelf? Keep reading. More reading less grandstanding.

Yes, please. With your hand up over there.

Professor little-p. The most logical reason for thirty-one grade levels is because the computer program probably allows only two digits. Rooting the median in the center of the five-letter ABCDF normative system, allows for the addition of eight plus's and eight minus's.

{as the median-monotone voice marched

solemnly along without exertion

their words became visible on the text-screen

| Name: "Francis 'Freak' Storm" |

| Preferences: zhe/hzr/zero |

appended-to a white-on-black slashed-numeral zero image

above a canary-yellow, capital letter, C changed into a

cool-electric B+}

This level of deep-dive into my writings, Freak, while personally appreciated, is not specifically related to the class. However, I applaud your use of the term 'normative system', your logic, as well as your accuracy.

We have our first AI confusion of the day, nice! An unregistered auditor posed a statement, which was translated by the AI, but either they are present in the room or they have the same identifying profile as someone in the room. We'll see if the AI blinks itself. Until then, I'll read it.

<translate> Being a terrible person is drastically different than being terrible at person-ing (which is what the shirt seems to convey). Being socially clumsy, possessing less-than-optimal charisma, as well as other traits commonly believed to be possessed by those who self-identify as introverted, are the characteristics of so many people who are creative that they are stereotypical-to-the-point-of-cliche. This shirt draws attention to those stereotypes.

I see it's still working on its hick-up, so, would any of y . . .

{as the professor's words

dwindled away, the text-screen changed

| Name: "Ted" |

| Preferences: he/him/sir |

appended-to an image of a cowboy on a horse

above a canary-yellow, capital letter, C as it changed

into florescent-green A}

Um. Well! It is possible . . . Is it possible, Ted, that you are in this room, or can hear me?

<translate> Yes. I am the person in the wheelchair at the back. My voice program is similar to others with muscular dystrophy, only my French-English translator is old of date. And, I did not want to shout to call attention. So I logged in as a auditor even though I am registered. Apologies.

Ted, your interpretation is as correct as it's possible to be. That said, I (and the AI) would like to discover a way to recognize the equivalent of your hand being raised. I can not see you from down here. Does your chair have a light?

{In the top back of the room a spotlight lit the back of the wall,

rustle of clothing, whispers, creaking chairs}

Excellent. I will now be able to call on you, sir. Thank you.

{a dozen more people contributed to the class discussion,

which touched on some of the elements from

the first lecture (thoughts, memories, beliefs, et cetera)

however nothing further was said by any of the study group:

Dre, E F Noel, Susan or Sue, Randelf, Francis "Freak" Storm, or Ted}

go on, keep it up:

art is in the eye of the mind

consider that gravity is more important than you think

gravity is an artist's muse

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

Mandatory Cat Pick - Cecil Halloween 2022

When I Say

'I hear you'

I mean that

I hear every

paddle swish

of blood as

it sloshes

all syrupy,

as well as

the lickslap

eyelids make

when closed.

Good thing I

like dry food

Happy Anniversary Autumnal Harvest Halloween Night and Day of the Dead 2022

stick with funnybone theme:

half-century old story

overheard convo's are Funny

The Three Monks

Three monks walking a path.

The first is overly cognizant of their every action. They attempt to never crush or injure any tiny animal or insect underfoot. Their path commonly pauses and weaves as they place each foot into any available space between caterpillars.

The last also hesitates, hops, and lands. Their attempt, however, is to aim every one of their steps so as to kill as many caterpillars as circumstance might place upon their path.

The middle rarely looks down. They walk as straight a path as efficiently practical, only altering stride to avoid mud puddles or navigate obstacles.

This middle monk realizes, at times, that cleaning caterpillar guts from between their toes could be avoided if they were more like the first monk. But they only choose to do so when there are almost none visible. When caterpillars crowd the path, the middle monk re-prioritizes efficiency and rationalizes their actions—as they return their gaze to the horizon—that the few squished by happenstance are outnumbered by the mass who survive to become butterflies.

Contemplate this allegory.

If the actual practice of a contemplation exercise is something unfamiliar, follow these steps:

In a place without distractions, close your eyes and imagine the events depicted.

As you picture each monk, consider what might be their motivations if you interpreted the story in a way that was as close-to-literal as imaginable (and the three were actual Jainists).

Decide which monk you most identify with and why you are less comfortable with pretending to be inside the head of the other two.

Now consider what abstract concept the story might be encouraging you to understand. Consider other parables containing three characters (Three Blind Mice; The Three Little Pigs; The Three Bears; The Three Billy Goats Gruff; et cetera).

Once the above steps are complete, stop contemplating and read the Three Monks Addendum which provides an answer to the fourth step.

Resume contemplating with the first task in mind to re-evaluate step three. Allow your mind to wander. Allow your concentration to play.

If your mind reminds you of urges your body would like to be satisfied (future self thoughts) return your contemplation to the monk you least identify with and consider their opinion of the monk you might aspire to become in a perfect world.

If your mind recollects memories your body once experienced (past self thoughts) switch your contemplation to the event outside your ears between each heartbeat.

corvid art poem

allegory - instruction

metaphorical - instruction

Go On Project artwork-poem: "E F"

About expecting the space in SELF (inside of E and F)

awhile full of intent, empty doubt maintaining a place

without self - Imaginary elf

Compose an: E F juncture by planning an L and never

executing the letter mentally

Now be in the plan/remember gap, within the juncture

experience the event of reality

More E F Noël concepts within the Go On Project:

Mailbox artwork -ALL

Stages of Awareness

Two poems relating differently

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:

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

Empathetic Ally

continue focused contemplating:

Fade to Black

Ciao

nudes falling into eye

Before Sterger Memories Become Regrets (original Go On article)

Defined by—after one recalls them—the simple word: regrets, Sterger Memories are those thoughts, which fill-in-the-blanks in sentences like this one: "I wish I did not choose - blank - when I considered - blank - and instead opted to - blank - which (because of current circumstances) I now regret not choosing at the time."

Everyone's metaphorical bin o' memory contains some surviving ideas, loose concepts, sketched plans, untaken suggestions, and never-realized fantasies pertaining to their previous "paths-not-taken". We form these Sterger Memories whenever we deliberate long and strongly enough over some decision we considered serious enough, important enough, valuable enough, or irrevocable enough to require a sufficient amount of self-deliberation to "weigh our options," or "formulate a contingency plan," or "diligently exercise caution," before we choose our ~~correct~~ next course of action.

Humans normally only recall Sterger Memories after coming-to-realize (discovering too late) that they're now presently, willfully, meandering down another wrong path!—and they realize the need to make another crucial decision. Realizing the need to correct course causes humans to think back. In their rear-view-mirror, they recognize their previous unchosen options they had once considered (or should have considered). These are not yet regrets; these are still Sterger Memories. The human who re-considers their Sterger Memories with new, more-experienced, eyes and wishes they had not wasted their own time (feels regret) can opt to incorporate those re-recalled memories into their ~~correct~~ next decision. Or not.

If-and-when we find ourselves in a place in our lives, which we feel contentment-with or sublime satisfaction-in (this perfect path we're currently on) what benefit might be gained from recalling the other options we once carefully weighed and then discarded (besides self-congratulatory ones)? When we "have no regrets" our Sterger Memories, surrounding the sufficiently content path we chose, are left un-recalled.

Over the decades, Sam Landlord amassed several profitable apartment buildings. The income they generated kept he and his family wealthy into his retirement years. When Sam turned 65 years old, he decided to keep all of the apartment buildings until after he turned 70. Sam made that decision because he considered maintaining and managing the buildings might become a burden as he aged; Sam did not want the managerial duties and up-keep chores to become too difficult.
Turning 70 when Covid-19 began, Sam could not sell any of his apartment buildings. Today, three years later than planned, Sam wishes he could quickly sell all his properties. The housing market is being bludgeoned by the economy; inflation is racing recession into the guardrails; eviction moratoriums took some toll on Sam; and, now, he recalls the Sterger Memories he made when he turned 65.
Sam recalls deciding not to sell the properties for various different reasons, which made logical sense in 2015. Now, however, Sam constantly trips over the idea that he would be so much better off today, if he had sold the properties back then. "I'd have profited several tens-of-thousands-of-dollars-less, but the lack of today's strife, reduction in constant stress, and the time-savings, would make that loss worth every penny!" Sam chides himself. Sam's almost-forgotten Sterger Memories have become regrets.
If Sam had decided, in 2015, that he was as "comfortably satisfied" as he could-be and chose to sell one property a year (so as to not be burdened by the Federal Capital Gains Tax) between 2015 and 2019, he would have no reason to recall one of his Sterger Memories had been an option to retain all the properties until after he turned 70. In that unrealized universe, those Sterger Memories never got turned into regrets by Sam.

Sterger Memories Become "Buyers Remorse":

It's rarely possible to recall previous options unless lengthy deliberation occurred. Recalling the options we ultimately did not choose, becomes harder and harder as time passes, and we confirm (to ourselves and others) that we're satisfied and have no regrets.

We are not able to tell ourselves to, "forget those unneeded details." Instead, we allow our minds to forget things by the simple act of not recalling them. If we did not deliberate or dwell on any given decision, for any sufficient length of time, the "other options" would not, therefore, have been contemplated long enough to be "saved". No deliberate-contemplation results in no Sterger Memories available from which to form future regrets.

How was lunch with Ms Snapperhead? Fine. What did you eat? Aahh Chicken Tettrazzini with a slice of homemade pie; field-berry à la mode! What were some of the menu choices you considered but didn't choose, and why did you decide not to eat them? I'm sorry, I don't recall.

Retention of one's Sterger Memories relating to a recent successful decision is normally done without even consciously realizing it. However, if one eventually realizes their decision was made in error, they can then-immediately recall their Sterger Memories, which are now labelled as 'regrets'.

Congratulations on the new job! How are things going so far? I don't know; things could be better. Oh, how so? Well the section supervisor is a real piece of work. And, I had no idea that this company would be so authoritarian about anyone checking-or-taking-their-phone-out during work hours. And, maybe it's just me, but there's this ass-hat who irritates me all day long with their grating tone of voice.

Efficiency Causes Sterger Memories (everywhere):

This is definitely not a strictly-human process. Every living entity (including single-celled organisms) that utilize limited energy resources in order to enhance their survival, prioritizes their movements towards a more-efficient capacity. A mouse learns the maze. A branch pivots to keep its leaves in sunlight. A salmon returns to the only safe spawning grounds it's capable of recalling.

And—while an average human tries to carry too many items at one time, because they 'decided' making several trips would, presumably, be less efficient (result in an increase in fatigue, cause additional levels of irritation, et cetera)—a single-celled pond-scum bacterium tries to escape being eaten by a nearby bacterium, of the same species, by shift-sliding away from their cannibalistic-relative in the most efficient manner possible, in accordance with the amount of energy it has available.

Conclusion Given: 3 years ago I clearly didn't understand Nietzsche's Love Fate🖤

Whether the "drive-toward-efficient-decisions" can be referred to as "innate"; or if that drive is able to save a single cell's existence for a few more minutes of "life"; or if it only results in "saving" a few more minutes of human energy-time—Sterger Memories are only able to become regrets if we want them to. (Note to Self: Re-read that very complex sentence until it clicks!)

If we do not decide-to-value (from now on and forevermore) the incremental knowledge we gain from experiencing every and all the events which involve testing the current path we are on, in lock-step with: choose-deciding when it's the appropriate time to give a different path a try—versus—continuing on the same path (revealing a constant undercurrent of everything related to the microseconds of conservation of energy going on at a below-cellular level*) all-the-while trusting that we will derive more enjoyment from exploring and learning from this current-new-previous path, for a sufficiently comfortable amount of "additional-experience-time" AND definitely not ever, never, wishing to have avoided the potholes and pitfalls which were never, not ever, going to have been visible, predictable, or imagined from the vantage point of yesterday. This is how you avoid regrets.

You would never desire imagining Self flagellation, if you decide-choose, instead, to enjoy the challenges (love all the everything's, which chaotic fate has allowed you to recognize as opportunities for growth). Chaotic fate possesses no ability to conspire. This one-way attitude is how to understand Nietzsche's Amor Fati (Love Fate).

I chose when I thought it would be appropriate to choose and will choose when I think it will again Be. Wishing to walk one path unerringly is ignorantly wishing for the most pleasurable death-time and death-experience. Loving the cautious 'skip' over potholes and the care-full 'deviation' around pitfalls, just means you enjoy the experience of learning what life has randomly removed from its store-room for you to become a better you.

I suspect these last four paragraphs are both easily understood and at-the-same-time undecipherable by 99.9% of people who read them. Even if I highlight the message and scream it loudly, only those very-few others, who've become self-aware, will interpret them through the lens of not knowing what Love Fate means and recognize it has value as truth.

If this is you, come back in a time when you are back here. If then, these paragraphs hit harder and smell more comfortable. Well. Hello.

* I'm not able to state that atoms have awareness. Nor am I able to state that sub-atomic particles act with intent. But I'm also not able to state any-everything-else, which I've not become aware of by experience as being true. Or false. Or neither.

🖤 This Exercise in Testing Awareness of Self might only work for those who also (previous to their own self-awareness) didn't understand the benefit of Amor Fati, or why Nietzsche wrote about it as he did. Although it's entirely possible I (merely) became this-fuckin-much smarter in the last few years, which resulted in my ability to understand Amor Fati, write about it cogently, and put it into practice...I recall that this complex-level of understanding came into awareness during one session of self-contemplation.

Final Word (footnote under the footnotes): If you do not understand Amor Fati—after reading about Sterger Memories—then it will no-doubt come as a shock that I made all this up from 'whole cloth'. The word sterger is regrets spelled backwards. This is original thought on the page! This is how a philosopher do (*in a Zefrank tone of voice*) -bitch.

More Go On and Ego One More:

Amor Fati

philosophizing real philosophy

Discomfiting Echo