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 Given: 3 years ago I clearly didn't understand Nietzsche's Love Fateπ€
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.
π€ 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:
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 ----
π I would feel better wearing T-shirt #1 (compared to T-shirt #2)
π I would feel worse wearing T-Shirt #1 (compared to T-shirt #2)
π 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".
π 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.
π 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.
π Both shirts make me experience uncomfortable emotions. I would wear neither shirt. Ever.
π I decline to consider these questions or to participate in this specific evaluation questionnaire.
π 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:
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:
π This is the first time I have heard this
song - and,
π I enjoy this song - or,
π I do not enjoy this song.
π I have heard this song before - and,
π I do not mind listening to it again -
or,
π I dislike being forced to listen to it.
π This is a random selection of music.
There is no real reason for their selection or order.
π 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.
π Every song is related to the one preceding it in the loop. Some of those connections are instantly obvious, others take time to realize.
π 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):
π Happy (as in: pleasurably content,
comfortable, relaxed, et cetera).
π Nostalgia?
π Toe-tapping, leg-bouncing?
π Goosebumps or chills?
π Ecstatic (as in: energized,
dancing or urge to dance, thrilled, et cetera).
π Racing heart?
π Tears-of-joy (or a 'bubbling up inside' urge to cry)?
π Neutral (as in: emotionless, placid,
uninterested, not-worth-your-time, et cetera).
π Dopamine-source(s) asking for your Self to
pay them some attention?
π Uncomfortable (as in: angry, fearful,
bored, confused, disconcerted, pissed-off, et cetera).
π This era of music is not from my era.
π The ethnicity of the musicians are not my
ethnicity.
π The lyrics in the song are too difficult to
understand.
π There are mostly instrumentals and
odd-sounds (or the instrumental breaks are too long).
π I like some of that artist's music, but
this is not a song I'm familiar with. Nobody I know listens to this.
π 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.
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 funny. Punctuation 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'
πand 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:
Gender Neutral Honorific New-to-you (for Zero)
"Whoz-at down there?"
"Red Eft, here! Pronouns: they/them, honorific: newt*. You don't mind if I keep moving while we talk, do ya?"
"Nice to see you -ahh- Neww-t. Never used 'Newt' as an honorific. This is a first for me. And, I enjoy when I do something for the first time and can recognize itz a novel experience thatz happening to me. Gonna take some time to familiarize myself with how it feelz-n-such. I'm pleased you called out to me, though ... Neww-t ... 'cause I didn't see you at first."
"First time for you! Nice. So, before now, what did you say to someone new-to-you, who was not displaying visually identifiable colors or shapes or smells or sounds and such in order to communicate their gender?"
"Well, ahh, we, ahh, I ... would choose not use any honorific until I knew if they were a 'sir' or a 'ma'am' or a 'doctor' or a 'yer highness' or a 'your majesty'... Neww-t."
"I see! It sounds very-much-as-if you are normally perceived as impolite or rude, by most of the world. That doesn't bother you?"
"Oh. Well. I don't know if thatz accurate, I mean..."
"Is this another first-time for you? I am so happy to have afforded you the opportunity to have two firsts inside of such a brief time! You looked down and then asked me, 'who is that down there' and clearly—you were unaware that it sounded brisk and unfriendly. Polite and friendly would have been to ask 'who is that down there, newt'. If I were displaying my dark greens then you would have been correct to ask me 'who is that down there, sir' and if I chose to display my yellows then you would have been correct to ask me 'who is that down there, ma'am'. Oh! I'm not communicating something clearly, am I, mister? Because you have chosen to display the nonverbal expression that can only be described as befuddled."
"Red. Neww-t. I am sorry. You are speaking clearly. Thatz also the face I make when I am processing new-to-me information. I process slowly. I'm older."
"Well I can see you are older just by looking at your size—you are so much older than me! But, if I may give you a tiny bit of advice? You, sir, pronounce the gender neutral honorific like a clumsy. I just heard you use it's un-abbreviated form: new-to-me, which—when shortened—is newt. You drop the word 'to' in the middle. After the 't' and before the 'o'? Most of the time it sounds like you are calling me a Newt. Also rudeness. Like—as if—I were to call you 'human' instead of 'sir'. Very different. You see?"
"You have been very helpful, newt. I do have a question about your orange color. Respectfully. I was informed that itz a 'poisonous to eat' warning. Zat true?"
"I do not know the answer to your question, mister, and, I've never heard about it from any others of my species. Why do you ask? Are you hungry?"
"No, Red. Just curious to know if what I was once told or read was a truth. If it was actually a fact or if—like almost everything in the world that I've not personally experienced—it was just another fabricated belief, passed down from some long-dead doctor-scientist to another ignorant old human. Like my Self. I'm working on getting rid of concepts, assumptions, suspicions, and beliefs that I have no actual experience with, and which I have not personally verified the veracity of."
"But. If I said that I was, or was-not, poisonous - and related a story which, in my mind, would confirm or deny it—you still would not have actually verified it yourself. Right? You would need to eat me to change your as-yet-not-verified belief into a personally-known truth?"
"Yes, newt-Red. That is correct."
"And if your previous belief turned out to be true, you might die smarter!"
"You, dearest newt, are missing the point in its glorious entirety! And—finally—I can share something new-to-you: I have just come to realize, while talking with you, that the foundational bedrock of the reason to rid myself of all the brain clutter and non-mandatory mental stuff, which I don't really know to be true (because I've never personally experienced it), is because itz better to accept that I do not know something—like your poisonous or nonpoisonous nature—than to continue to blindly accept what I've been informed about the all-of-everything for my entire life!
I can, now, welcome never being uncomfortable with the continuous urge to know. Or, to put it in a positive manner: I am comfortable (and will go on being comfortable) only accepting that I know only the very, very, few truths which I have experienced first-hand. Everything else is hearsay. Everything else has no bearing on my actual core being.
My central Being is not connected to awareness of anything based on assumptions or beliefs or superstitions or even actual facts (which I've yet to experience with my own senses).
My human Self, on the other hand, is a 'metaphorically-separate' mental entity. It is responsible for keeping me safe and alive. It BELIEVES you are poisonous to the touch and could make me die if I ate you. So, I let my Self decide not to touch you, and I keep on living.
My Being has no desire to touch you, newt Red Eft, because it is comfortable not knowing. Happy not knowing. Content not knowing. Voluntarily not knowing. Intentionally not knowing. And not because moving one more little tiny piece of information from my personal 'belief column' to my 'true-knowledge' column would cause you harm. But because Not Knowing is Being."
*Editor note: Pronouncing the gender-neutral honorific - newt - sounds like saying 'nude' without drawing-out the word. Pronouncing the species name - Newt - draws out the vowel and lands-hard on the T.
go on reading:
Toward a Psychology of Being (Go On: Reading Curriculum)
Composed, in a stitched-together manner, in the 1960s by Abraham Maslow (famous for his Hierarchy of Needs) from a collection of his speeches and previously published articles—Toward a Psychology of Being is a valuable examination of how one extraordinarily intelligent clinical psychologist, with a keen awareness of how to differentiate the discrete variations between traits displayed by human minds that other human minds (namely, his own and those of his colleagues who would have attended his lectures/speeches as well as read his published articles) had chosen to label "healthy" (which would include his own and those of his colleagues) compared to those he and they had chosen to label "unhealthy".
While I read these 175 pages, I came to realize what it must have been like to possess an overly-academic worldview **self-constructed by an ego that had learned to recognize its own accomplishments and knew it was genius-level, while at the same time was now aware there was a higher accomplishment, which was beyond its current capabilities: that of a self which had become actualized and/or fully conscious.** and THIS TOPIC was what he decided to research, further-study, and then write articles and give speeches about. It is as if you (dearest reader) decided to interview, and test, and observe, and experiment on, all the humans who have travelled to space, and the moon, and the space-station, and then compile their responses and your conclusions into "scientific findings" which describe what it must be like to be an astronaut. Without you ever leaving Earth.
It is slightly confounding to read these collection of papers (peppered with the occasional printing error and typographical mistake) and not wish that a keen editor would have fixed the missing or mis-spaced punctuation marks; would have added the 't' in front of the 'he' so that I would not have to lose my train-of-thought (?what person is being described as a 'he' in the middle of this? . . . oh . . . Maslow meant to write 'the thought about' not "he thought about".) But the overall gestalt of this book is the perfect preface for the next book in the Go On Reading Curriculum. Read it.
If, however, you find that you can not; that this book is too complicated for you to read? It means this is your bridge-too-far, and you will not Go On. A terrible man (depicting a more-terrible character in a relatively-terrible film) once said, "A man has got to know his limitations." Every dangerous or risky or complicated endeavor has some form of built-in warning. Like cartoon characters with their wing raised and a sign reading: MUST BE TALLER THAN THIS TO RIDE THE ROLLER COASTER in order to prevent children from slipping out of the safety harness at the top of the loop-to-loop, this imperfect book contains much needed information for your imperfect self to become more aware of itself. It is difficult-but-not-impossible to read, cover-to-cover, while you spend as much time as you need contemplating everything it communicates. But. For those who still want to Go On: read, study, think about, discuss, and read more of everything (philosophy, theology, psychology, biology, physics, etc) and then come back to Maslow when you have spiraled up and out of blue, orange, or even green [although most shades of green, (and even some orange-green's) are already capable of comprehending Maslow enough to Go On]. You did read the first book in the Reading Curriculum, right?
As a side-note: Abraham Maslow wrote (in a different book) "If the only tool you have is a hammer, it is tempting to treat everything as if it were a nail". This is known as the Law of the Instrument. A few years ago, I wrote the article: Don't Act Like a Nail and Complain About Hammers describing a debilitating affectation, which is worn like underclothing by a few people with whom I was once affiliated, known as Vulnerable/Covert Narcissism (which Maslow would have labelled as an "unhealthy mental affliction"). At the time, I did not attribute the title of that article to Maslow, because I took it way out of his intended context, as well as because other authors had also used it within their own contexts.
complexly-connected:
manbug I VOTED sticker
The world is (depending on where you are located in the northern hemisphere this summer of 2022): either actually on fire, literally flooded under water, almost completely without drinking water, or an amalgam of so-too-incredibly hot and humid that only a complete and utter fool would deny Climate Change is real. Oh, and hurricane season is imminent and (of course) expected to be especially damaging.
I still cringe when I hear someone cough in a phlegmy and uncovered way—no matter that I've received a second C-19 booster. And don't dismiss Monkey Pox as only affecting a specific minority of the population; it is spreading quickly through any saliva-on-skin-contact. Masks are back on.
Abortions are no longer a federally protected freedom for about half of the US population. It is possible that the federal protections afforded same sex marriages will, also, soon disappear.
And there is one thing EVERYONE can do about all of this: Vote.
For. Anyone. Who. Is. Not. A. Republican. (It will not make much difference in your lifetime—however—the 115℉ (45℃) temperatures this decade are going to become 130℉ (55℃) in the 2050's, and your grand-kids are not going to like that grandpa and grandma kept voting Republican because they wanted to pay less taxes and they did not care about anybody but themselves.)
more:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
