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 πŸ‘Ά and their own death πŸ’€; 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 - NaΓ―ve - 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 afterwardsAppreciation 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:
 
 
 
 

Empathetic Ally








continue focused contemplating:
 
 
 

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 Γ  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 Given3 years ago I clearly didn't understand Nietzsche's Love FateπŸ–€

          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.

πŸ–€  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

AlfaBraveChuck begging ZooluYankyXrey's WonkyVision

 
all blatantly copyrighted decisions
 
ear/eye/entire fuckin-gasms

(hell, I'm just kidding)
 
lick my next open penetration
 
quality rest
 
second
 
third
 
under-valued
 
wonderfullness
 
xerotic *yawn* zazen
 
 
 
 
zeitgeist's yahoo-xenia will vex
 
until the self realizes
 
quandaries prevent ontology
 
negate meditation
 
lethargize karma
 
jubilant inner humbling
 
genius-fraught-experience
 
delve consciously
 
become aware




improve one's Self with more poetry-art:
 
 
 
 


Book Recommendation (Go On Project)

 
I have never read a book of this magnitude.  The Book of Not Knowing, by Peter Ralston, took about two months to read every one of the 580-pages, allowing myself sufficient time to accomplish all the contemplation-exercises and re-read parts which I required to be reminded of.
 
Once finished, I immediately began re-reading.  (At time of typing, I'm 32 pages into my second-read of this "consciousness bible".)  I was able to discern my Self after 537 pages and, consequently, became conscious of Being - for my first time. 

My impulse to re-read it, stemmed from an immense desire to learn if my current state of consciousness (after the unexpected and unforeseen "level up") might add a better perspective on the experience.  

Climbing the tallest mountain available on Earth, seems impossible to accomplish (until you reach the summit and surprise yourself that you're there).  Climbing the tallest mountain available on Earth - a second time - with an awareness that you are walking in your own footsteps, brings with it, an entirely new perspective.  An entirely new perspective on your Self.  

If I were to quickly describe the book, I would note that every paragraph is numbered.  The last paragraph is 26.54 (the fifty-fourth paragraph of the twenty-sixth chapter).  Every paragraph is comprised of simple-to-understand words; not overly-complex sentences; and (amazingly) adheres to the initially stated overall-explanation of: how to best understand your Self and become conscious of Being.

It is possible to read this book as a guidebook (with no intent to immerse yourself in the contemplation exercises) and to come out the other end simply, "more informed".

Many people might try to climb the tallest mountain available on Earth before they are in a sufficiently prepared mental condition.  Some of those might choose to quit part-way, but that's only those climber's selves looking out for their well-being and encouraging them to practice on smaller slopes and come back when they are better prepared to Go On.

I have obtained more of Peter Ralston's books.  I feel it is necessary to mention the fantastic editing by Laura Ralston - it is the best edited book I have ever been privileged to absorb.

Silhouette of New England

 
 
The silhouette of New England is never confused with the actual land that is occupied (at time-of-writing) by six regional legal-social-cultural human jurisdictions (referred to as 'states') in the northeastern-most portion of the nation currently referred to with the name "United States of America".
 
After the collection of humans with the worst agenda score [FFFFFA] eradicated and conquered the indigenous tribes who—even when foolishly considering their multiple tribal-nations as a conglomerate—possessed better agenda scores on-average [CDCCBC], the FFFFFA-ing humans then decided to "brand" their nascent country with a name starting with an ironic adjective!
 
The FFFFFA never considered their name-brand might be interpreted to mean: 'linked-in-a-contiguous-manner'.  No.  Instead, they wanted all current and future enemies to realize: "Those genocidal maniacs are united in their desire to keep killing and enslaving other human beings."
 
Those horrible motherfuckers were planning on going the distance.  They immigrated, to this part of the American continent, with the best butcher-murder tools strapped to their luggage.  Most of the FFFFFA-agenda-possessing humans were fringe-level religious zealots; outcasts in their home countries for (mostly) legitimate reasons.  These FFFFFA-hate-mongers wanted a place where they could play all-grown-up make-believe and kill any and every human who might attempt to prevent or even condemn their fervently-believed (imaginary) dogmatically-based activities.
 
They were actively planning (and eagerly hoping) to engage in a genocide (Even as they began to sail against the storms across the Atlantic ocean.)  By the 18th century the survivors were 90-95% successful.  And they all thought of themselves as: The 'best and most-honorable' in the 100% successful Indian Wars.  (Just as if Adolf Hitler's Third Reich had won, the German Aryan Nation would consider that they won the Jew War.)
 
Call a genocide "a war" and your ancestors will be fooled into thinking *there were bad people behaving badly on both sides*—and this is why the European-descendants of the pilgrims (Calvinists, Quakers, Amish, Mennonites, et cetera) might choose to not think badly of their not-so-great grandparents from centuries past.  Your ancestors (and mine) were all the worst-of-the-worst. 
 
But, this is not a chapter in the "Wake The Fuck Up America" textbook.  Nor is this a preface to the horrible truths of our ancestral-FFFFFA-swamp, (where most present-day Caucasian's DNA originated).

My intent is to drive-hard on the point I made at the beginning:  The silhouette of New England is never confused with the land itself.  Nor is it confused with the people who currently inhabit (or previously inhabited) the land.  Nor is it ever considered to be synonymous with: birds, beetles, trees, titmice, dinosaurs, deli-groceries, or anything tangible on the portion of current-epoch Earth, which the silhouette artwork might communicate when glanced at. 
 
That is all an artwork of this type requires:  A GLANCE.  
 
In that glance, the viewer either recognizes the shadow-image traced on construction paper (which is why long hair is gathered) or the viewer does not recognize the profile.  Nonetheless, the glance is never considered to be anything more than an attempt to capture a "simple outline".
 
Your Self is a complex collection of memories, beliefs, fantasy-imaginary futures, assumptions, day-dreams, nightmares, emotionally-connected experiences, and programmed behaviors.  It is something you GLANCE at, when asked to, "describe yourself" (by a potential employer, potential friend, potential partner, et cetera).  If you take the agenda test, you will spend some time considering your current behaviors/experiences/beliefs and decide which collection of six-letters is yours for today.  Tomorrow, your letters could be different.  Yesterday, your letters could have been different.  
 
You would never confuse the silhouette of yourself with your actual Self.  You know the map is not the terrain.  A silhouette of a map is not even a useful map (but it might be nice to take out at parties).
 
Knowing where you fall on each of the six scales [Benevolent - Avaricious; Candor - Guile; Anmity - Enmity; Integrity - Nefariousness; Pragmatic - Dogmatic; and Certainty - Ambivalence] requires you to engage your Self to think about (and become-aware of) where-you-wish-you-were compared with where-you-realize-you-actually-are.  That is (almost always) comparing who the future-you might be with who the past-you has been (up to now).  

Now you, is never the you that you think of when thinking of your self.  Your Self was (and your memories confirm that) and your Self might be (and your dreams, plans, and hopes confirm that).
 
Time makes us think in broad generalities.  The gap between who you were when you began to read this article and who you will be when you finish it, is merely a vague memory of:  "I read an article wherein Veach described some things he believed to be true about some of his ancestors (FFFFFA immigrants from England and Wales) and some of his partner's ancestors (CBCCDC natives from before the genocide)."
 
Your Self may or may-not choose to incorporate some of my beliefs.  That is your Self at work.   Helping you to survive.  That is your Self's only real job.  And, if anything-I-related caused you to experience a feeling of discomfort/unease/anger that was your Self telling you "This Information Conflicts With Data Previously Stored".
 
Then—depending on how much dogmatic-devotion you currently correlate with the person (teacher, parent, spouse, pastor, et cetera) or the organization (church, school, club, friend-group, et cetera) who told you the Previously Stored Data—your Self will either replace the Previously Stored Data with this New Data - or - it will discard the stupid-Veach-beliefs and, soon, forget about them altogether. 

My Self has learned to trust the truthfulness and truth-fullness it experiences when my Self pauses its thoughts about the past and, at-the-same-time, pauses its thoughts about the future.  Only allowing the current unfolding of time to pass along one-second a second . . . without ever allowing the experience of Being to Be anything contemplated relative to my Self's associations.  No past.  No future.  Only conscious of the gap between the past and future.  Only the gap.  Nothing related to memories.  Nothing related to plans.  Being conscious of Being In Now, with no Self interpreting, is (as far as I can tell after only a few weeks) becoming aware—in a glance—of the AAAAAA which resides inside every.
 
          For those who finished this article unscathed, I offer this parting gift:
 
                    - Scroll to the top of this article; tip your head, right-ear toward right-shoulder; examine the silhouette of New England (not the snapperhead logo and not my inner feminine silhouette).
 
                    - It looks like a Scottish Terrier.  In mid-bark!
 
                    - If I meet a Scottish Terrier named New(t) England, at any time in my Self's future, I will assume that Scottie dog's owner either read this article - or - already noticed the resemblance before (or after) I did, and is as fluently-capable of pareidolia as I.
 
 
 
Go On, Get Satiated:

 
 

Multiple Choice Puzzle (Go On Project)


fourth dehydrated hyena

 

T-shirt #1      (Front) Your Coping Mechanism's Showing          (Back) My Coping Mechanism's Showing

T-shirt #2      (Front) My Coping Mechanism's Showing          (Back) Your Coping Mechanism's Showing

         ---- Check at least one box ---- Check no more than three boxes ---- Check your thinking-in-action ----

πŸ—† I would feel better wearing T-shirt #1 (compared to T-shirt #2)

πŸ—† I would feel worse wearing T-Shirt #1 (compared to T-shirt #2)

πŸ—† T-shirt #2 is interpreted as a Join-The-Club shirt.  It is proclaiming *with a wink* I'm honest and self-aware.  I accept your eyes on my back with a "tease" because "everyone displays their coping mechanism".

πŸ—† T-shirt #1 is interpreted as a Leading-The-Club shirt.  It is stating "everyone's hope (that their coping mechanism is not visible) is wrong".  I assume it goes without saying (even though the 'fine print' on my back says it) that I'm also a club member. 

πŸ—† Because I have no mental or emotional reaction(s) to either shirt - or - I'm neutral, without emotion, when considering both shirts; I would be willing to wear either of them without qualm or hesitation.

πŸ—† Both shirts make me experience uncomfortable emotions.  I would wear neither shirt.  Ever.

πŸ—† I decline to consider these questions or to participate in this specific evaluation questionnaire. 

πŸ—† I would also be enthusiastically-willing to wear a baseball-style cap, bearing the challenge: "Ask Me Why!" displayed on the front. 

    Answers (and reasons for them) may be discussed during our next Self-Being meeting.

 Keep Going Onward:

test your AI savvy

First Conceptual Steps (pre-Go On Project)

Pop Quiz 1 - Go On Project

 
     Consider the above-linked You Tube Playlist (≅100 minutes for first loop) a foundational element of this course.  It is a tool.  Listening to it (or something similar to it) while mentally working thru the below quiz will enhance/hone your ability to learn to identify your Self and to Go On to become consciously aware of Being.
 
     There are several purposes (more than are explained in these pop-quiz instructions) designed into this looping 21-song mix-tape.
 
     During the first listen, your awareness of your Self's preferences, will check some boxes:
            πŸ—† This is the first time I have heard this song - and,
                    πŸ—† I enjoy this song - or,
                    πŸ—† I do not enjoy this song.
            πŸ—† I have heard this song before - and,
                    πŸ—† I do not mind listening to it again - or,
                    πŸ—† I dislike being forced to listen to it.
            πŸ—† This is a random selection of music.  There is no real reason for their selection or order.
            πŸ—† Occasionally, I notice a connection between some of the songs.  Those connections are all in my imagination, because, listening to them in-this-order forces me to associate them together and to assume connections which do not actually exist.
            πŸ—† Every song is related to the one preceding it in the loop.  Some of those connections are instantly obvious, others take time to realize.
            πŸ—† Every song is somehow-connected to every other song.  The entire loop tells a single story using lyrics, melodies, emotions, rhythm, et cetera.      
 
     During repeated listening, you should focus on evaluating your emotions as they rise into your awareness and then fade from your awareness (to be soon-replaced with another):
             πŸ—† Happy (as in: pleasurably content, comfortable, relaxed, et cetera).
                    πŸ—† Nostalgia?
                    πŸ—† Toe-tapping, leg-bouncing?
                    πŸ—† Goosebumps or chills?
             πŸ—† Ecstatic (as in: energized, dancing or urge to dance, thrilled, et cetera).
                    πŸ—† Racing heart?
                    πŸ—† Tears-of-joy (or a 'bubbling up inside' urge to cry)?
             πŸ—† Neutral (as in: emotionless, placid, uninterested, not-worth-your-time, et cetera).
                    πŸ—† Dopamine-source(s) asking for your Self to pay them some attention?
             πŸ—† Uncomfortable (as in: angry, fearful, bored, confused, disconcerted, pissed-off, et cetera).
                    πŸ—† This era of music is not from my era.
                    πŸ—† The ethnicity of the musicians are not my ethnicity.
                    πŸ—† The lyrics in the song are too difficult to understand.
                    πŸ—† There are mostly instrumentals and odd-sounds (or the instrumental breaks are too long).
                    πŸ—† I like some of that artist's music, but this is not a song I'm familiar with.  Nobody I know listens to this.
                    πŸ—† Why would I intentionally make myself uncomfortable in order to evaluate the under-lying reason(s) that my Self decided (back in my distant long-ago and long-forgotten) that it did not like this music!?

    I can answer that one! . . . Because your current-emotions aren't connected to the long-ago decision-thought(s) which still cause them.  They come from different sources inside your Self.  You think that they're one-and-the-same because they (seem) to happen instantaneously-together.  They do not.  The separation is rarely distinguishable (less than a fraction of a fraction of a second).  Once you recognize the decision-thought which causes your Self to choose to *feel* a negative emotion -- if your today-Self does not want to continue to feel that emotion any more -- you can un-hitch the negative emotion(s) from the decision-thought that originated them.  First, you need to contemplate why you experience negative emotions connected to a song.  Dig down.  Keep asking yourself where the idea came from.  Ask, 'why do I dislike this?'  If it does not come.  That's ok.  Keep listening.  Keep thinking about your feelings.  You don't need to focus on the reasons you like a song.
 
     In the future, you will need to contemplate strong negative emotions related to family members, painful relationships, life-altering experiences, et cetera.  That might (will) be difficult.  This is just music tastes!  Call this:  "Introduction to How To Contemplate Your Negative-Feelings".    

     Hey, professor Veach, since you have already said, 'This is just music and everyone has music they like and music they don't like', why is this quiz important to eventually becoming aware of Self and conscious of Being?

     That question almost answers itself.  Music preferences are a relatively wide-spread reality in today's culture.  Therefore it's a simple issue to take this quiz and immediately be able to realize our preconditioned and self-programmed music tastes.  We know how to listen to music and how to know if something new-to-you might "fit" into your current tastes.   Now, all you need to do is allow yourself to keep listening to these 21 songs in-entirety.  No cherry-picking.  No stopping mid-song or mid-playlist.  Give yourself 100 minutes and focus on your emotions. 
 
     This loop exists as a continuous 100 minute video.  Because of US copyright laws, it is only possible for me to send this video-quiz via email.  Let me know if you are interested (veachglines@gmail).
 
     Also, it is recommended you use ad-free YouTube Premium and high-quality headphones. 
 
     This is a self graded quiz. 
 

  
 
 
 
 
Go On:

 
                    
    

Artists are Terribly People (Go On Project, Lecture #1)


    Did you just say that you read a T-shirt proclaiming: "artists are terribly people?" they asked with a wry smile in their voice and the same old nascent lazy-eye vexed anew, in their imaginary facial expression.  But, just hold the fuck on here! . . . (isn't a question mark implied after the word 'expression' as much as it is, at the end of this group of words) — oops, you didn't put a question mark down at the end, again.  Why not?  But you did place one just there.  So punctuation use, or unuse (lack of use?  disuse?  un-use?) is artistic license as long as we agree that the words we are reading have been created by an artist.
 
    "This feels like the preface for the beginning of professor Veach's initial Go On Lecture Series.  The one where he (at this point, the sub-textual words: 'attempts to' will be read one way by some readers, and in another way—at this point—by other readers) weaves a story with its own plot while incorporating an interesting philosophical argument into the message."  They thought to themselves because these were the words, which were, now, (slowly) causing them to realize they were (actually) agreeing to allow some assfucker (could Professor Veach be an assfucker?  Ass fuckery is—-- ok, make there be heard a dial-up modem sound at this point --because the person who wrote these lettersentences and punctuation thinks it's funnyPunctuation Marks!
 
  *giggle* Because you allowed me to raise your inner voice and now you are allowing me to imagine the Full Metal Jacket Drill Sergeant as he stares down under the brim of his amazingly stiffly starched Mountie hat at first onto you and then into you, with his unique type of bug-eye-stare, which you have agreed (with everyone who sees it) communicates wordlessly:  This entire society has given my brand of unhinged, their full-permission to be as much of an ass-fuck, to you . . . who are currently-now a member of this relatively small group of this society's strongest youthful-young-YOU . . . who possess the most violent/attracted-to-risk-embracing (internal-drug addled) minds", as he forcefully shouts, "Give These Punctuation Marks a God Damned Reach Around!!  

    This is a strange agreement you have entered into.  Do you agree?  You are listening to my words - my lecture - which is you implicitly allowing me to tell you what is unfolding from the inside of my brain and (*) putting it inside your brain. 

    This lecture's transcript will be read an unknown number to times.  Unknown to me, the person who is typing, and unknown to you (the reader, every reader, someone reading it out loud, someone who decided to turn these words into a script, the actor who contracts with a group of administrators-over-actors to say these words with their 'currently-successful in current-day society's brand of unhinged') and even unknown to our overloard-computer-monitoring-programs who will BELIEVE they have an accurate tally.  But.  No-matter what beliefs are believed, by whom-what-when [www] ever, the number will always fall somewhere between one and infinity (1 - ∞).
 
     Not between zero and infinity (0 - ∞) because the artist had to read-see it when they transferred it from a collection of unlabelled-with-words things that we-all (both of us) agree to call 'THOUGHTS'.  Into a whomwhatwhen [WWW] before stringing that collection together into labels.
 
     O fuckin K.  ok.  Oll-Korrect.  Sorry.  Please excuse my (obvious-to-all, including my inner editor) overuse of certain verbal-mannerisms, which become an over-reliance on written punctuation marks and result in: a strange collection of run-on words and hyphens—or m-dashes—between words, which are obviously violations of some little book somewhere on "Proper Grammar".
 
     Critics all.  Our minds, our selves (Self's) are self-programmed (without a visible on/off switch) to treat "new-to-you" or "less-than-ordinary" experiences (like this one) with a highly critical eye.  Which could be labelled 'close-minded-disdain' when viewed from outside of our selves.  We, on-the-other-hand, NEVER think we are behaving disdainfully.   Everyone labels themselves 'open minded'.  When have you ever thought, *well, that was extremely close-minded of myself*?
 
     I suspect that most listeners/viewers of this artwork (on first listen/read) fall somewhere between nonplussed-confused and disdainfully-irritated.   So much so, that they (you) are more-than-likely *at this very moment* reluctant to consider it a legitimate artwork, because the word-itself says: 'work of art' and *where does he get off*? . . And, referring to himself as an artist? . . with the title professor? (albeit un-capitalized) and now calling this lecture an artwork?  Well.  I'll, disdainfully, be the judge of that.
 
     Maybe both listeners and viewers of this lecture's transcript would be less inclined to unfurl their inner critic if this lecture was composed of dried linseed-oil and pigment splattered on canvas, displaying to viewers various light-refracting and non-refracting molecules, which might be communicating a deeply mysterious message within its abstraction.
 
     Mystery may be mysterious, but it always causes curiosity in the curious.
 
     But.  This lecture is also riddled with mystery.  It is possible to speak-or-write plainly, with easily understood sentences, and with paragraphs which contain identifiable concepts.  All-the-while, keeping the listener confused and thinking.
 
     Isn't there a part of you that thinks: *I don't understand where he's going with this, but I'm still willing to keep reading/listening until I, either, "get it"- or - something I hear/read "pushes me too far" and I quit - or - the lecture comes to an end*?
 
"...contains quite a few too many repetitious uses of clichΓ©-squiggles, which reminds this viewer of corkscrews..." - Anonymous mouse, who likes the pun in the screen-name 'a non-e-mouse'
 
           πŸ’­and which reminds a non-e-mouse of a relatively large animal's penis.
          (and, the reason his inner self labelled the corkscrews as "subjectively negative", was-and-still-is 40-years-later, because he (as a 4 year-old) stare-giggled at the sight of a massive petting-farm pig as it failed to copulate with a petting-farm goat . . . and was given a strong amount of pain (beaten until the sight of blood caused the pain-giver to stop) by the adult from whom they had grown accustomed to receiving good tasting things from, and whom they called by the name Dad.  This pain caused their 4-year old self to associate that corkscrew visage with that punishment (for decades longer than it took for the basis for the entire memory to disappear).
        
     Which was/is too bad.  Because if a non-e-mouse were to self-hypnotize (meditate, practice mindfulness, actively contemplate, etc.) they could recall the actual reason they had been giggling was because *the pre-schooler's television-cartoon-laden mind* found humor in the pig's frustrated-focus compared with the anthropomorphized, look on the goat's face, as the pre-schooler imagined the goat was saying: 
         "I don't have time to give you a piggy-back ride, Porky!  Can't you see they have tasty stuff in their hands, which I want to put in my mouth, and chew and swallow until I don't want to chew-n-swallow any more!" 
     Also.  A non-e-mouse could, then, interpret (thru the lens of intervening decades) that their then-parent's anger may have been trained/programmed by their own parent.  And, a non-e-mouse might decide (rightfully or wrongfully—no matter—the truth is what the Self chooses) to conclude that many pre-television era farmers prevented their off-spring from deciding to commit bestiality with a belting as soon as it was suspected. 
            "Gotta nip that corruption in the bud!" - quote from every great-great-not-so-Grandpappy Ubiquitous
⧫ ⧫ ⧫ RETURN FROM IMAGINATION ⧫ ⧫ ⧫
(an echo of the word 'THOUGHTS' . . . 'thoughts' . . . gradually increasing)

     These thoughts are THOSE things inside us, which exist before we say them.

     Thoughts are THESE things inside our brains, which we think exist, because there are some large portion of them, which we first become aware of and then never do anything with.  We leave them unsaid.  We never think of them again.  We never jot them down.  

     There are an uncountable-number of awareness's, ideas, and "fleeting thoughts" that are never acted upon and are never turned into anything tangible.  These things never get out of our imaginations.

     We consider that any thought, which we "mull over" or "ponder on" for a long time or with a sufficiently strong enough focus to both be able and willing to refer to as an INNER IDEA, that because it was never expressed in any way (not spoken, not written, not photographed while hiking in the woods) — that it has no value and can simply "be forgotten" as soon as some other thought is considered valuable enough to push it out of the way.  And then we decide (? - or - is erasing random thoughts an automatic survival mechanism?) to either express that new thought aloud - or - write it down - or - type into our hand-held - or - sketch it out, so that we might, someday, turn that valuable idea into some form of dried linseed-oil and pigment display of various light-refracting and non-refracting molecules artwork. 

     An artwork is an attempt to use the brain-eye's sense of recollection and comparison in-concert-with the brain-hand's fine-tuned dexterity.  This ability is either "trained" by self-practice - or - "programmed" by ancestral DNA - or - "innate" to the luck-gods - or - is merely a side-effect of possessing this combination of traits and there is "absolutely no other reason".
 
     It could be that every organism in the Universe (visible and un-visible from Earth; known and unknown by Earthlings) which happen to possess the combination of:   complex eyes, fine-tuned thumb-touch, and sufficient cranial-thought recollection-and-comparison ability — can always use the combination to imagine and to, then, try to capture those imaginary images for future reference.
 
     Capturing imaginary images is communication with one's future self.  Showing those imaginary images to another (who also possesses complex-eyes and sufficient cranial-thought recollection-and-comparison ability) is advanced communication.  In layman's terms, it's called showing your artwork to a friend.
 
     Show a picture of a cute baby mouse at this point.
 
     Imagining is just a survival mechanism.  The baby mouse learns by watching the entity, which gives it stuff that tastes good.  When big enough to want to have more of the stuff, which tastes good, than the entity is currently providing (or intentionally stopped providing) the baby follows and learns to find its own stuff that tastes good.

     The adolescent mouse learns by avoiding getting pain from the entity which gives it pain.  When big enough to want to have less pain, than the entity is providing (or intentionally started providing) the adolescent un-follows and learns to avoid pain. 
 
     Adult mice survive because they have imagined future actions (want to have) which they compare to their present state, this activity is acceptable to think of as:  a state of lacking something they would not know they were lacking, if it were not labelled by their minds as something pleasurable, which they would like to re-experience because without it they experience pain (discomfort, hunger, sexual urges, etcetera).

     Make there be another (second) audible second dial-up modem sound at this point. 

     Ass fuckery is a pleasurable experience for those who have taught themselves how to relax their anal sphincter, thoroughly clean their own rectum, apply lubrication, and not to equate the internal stimulation with (the programmed-emotion) of shamefullness.
 
     There are a too-many-to-count-number of people who were taught to believe (by their own Great-great-not-so-Grandpappy Ubiquitous's) that anal stimulation is an irredeemable and unforgivable act.  Grandpappy Ubiquitous's have decided it is so shameful that it is not only punishable by death, but—after the assfucker or assfuckee has been killed—their terrible awareness will forever exist in the most pain their-long-deceased-Grandpappy Ubiquitous's ancestors could ever imagine: burning in the hot lava, which forms the (imaginary) pits of hell. 
 
     Can you imagine why this might be something billions of long-deceased-ancestors have conspired to construct in their imaginations and preach/share with their progeny as well as incorporate into the doctrine of their religions? 

     In conclusion:

     Random thoughts become cogent ideas the longer one contemplates them.

     Ideas are only valuable (to you and others) if you are able to objectively evaluate why you have them, discover where they originate, discard those which were passed along from some ubiquitously self-centered person (who considered everyone else in their world to be an unimportant background character because they were incapable of empathy) and to communicate those valuable ideas to yourself and others.

     Take-home assignment:  Please contemplate the title of this lecture "Artists are Terribly People" and formulate your thoughts around those four words until you have a new-to-you, original idea, which you can communicate.  At this time, no essay is required.  However, be prepared to explain your train-of-thought(s) relating to these four words during our up-coming discussion class.  I intend to focus that discussion on how your individual imaginations influenced your mental process(s).

     The next lecture in this Go On Project will introduce-and-expound-upon how to employ your imagination to identify empathy in your own mind, and (subsequently) how to incorporate empathy into your future actions, as well as how to identify the difference between sympathy and empathy in one's self (and others).

       
(*)  The fact that you, for your own reasons, are willing to lend some credence to my thoughts and possibly incorporate them into your future-self's future-behaviors, future-concepts, and future-thoughts is something pleasing to me because I RESPECT any creative brain which shows it possesses(¹) traits which I store-and-hold in a mental inner happy place, which I created/possess, and which—I posit—somehow got shoehorned into my learning-to-read-by-reading-aloud-self's mind when I discovered tales written by other humans which entertained and captured my imagination with sufficient levels of personally-generated chemicals that I wanted to repeat the experience.
      Which resulted in asking a Librarian (title used here to impart word-as-honorific) to point me to the isle where I hoped more of that personally-generated chemical stimulation would be stored.  It was.  I became addicted.  Addicted so much that I chose to learn/taught myself how to create my own punctuated-lettersentences.  Eventually, I possessed a mind which I RESPECT enough to enjoy some of my own artworks.

(¹)  Don't you just get an inner-tingle when certain words slither-role? (Didn't you just get it again?  Slither roll, slitheroll, ummm) . . . Slither-roll possesses a vindictively unparallelled level of nonpoisonousness to my sensibilities.
 
     Footnote under the footnotes (closing thought):
 
     There are people who have never had a brain-chemical reaction to any collection of punctuated-letterwords, who have no comprehension as to why the use of one's imagination can make them more intelligent, happier, healthier, and a more-honest individual (to themselves and others).  I am someone who thinks of those people with deep sorrow.  And, I feel this way even though I realize "they" can not fathom why I (or anyone) might actually feel sorry for someone else's inability to experience something so simple that it can be described in one sentence:  Learn to enjoy reading.

Eclectic Reading for Go On Students: