On Vocabulary

Introduction:

I prefaced "On A Democratic Economy" with a warning that anyone who messaged me without thinking through their position might be used to further illustrate a general lack of critical thinking.

[Note: I expect many people will not agree with me in what I have to say here.  I openly admit that *this* article is my opinion, unlike some other things I have said which are provable, yet have been dismissed as simply 'my opinion.']

In being true to my word, however, I will not critique someone specifically Maddox's hate mail style.  I have no interest in bullying anyone or making an example out of a single individual.  My complaint is not against people, but against the memes in authority guarding destructive ignorance in our social realms.

--

The Controversy:

I received a complaint about "On A Democratic Economy", but it was not concerned with it's message, which was admitted to be of interest to the reader in question.  The source of the trouble stemmed from the fact that the article contained my one and only use of a 'colorful' word thus far in my entire blog, and the reader found this word inappropriate.  Due to this one word, the reader shut off completely and discontinuing her investigation of the materials I have put forward.

Upon being informed by the person of her reaction, my first response was to apologize for the offense, and to remove the word saying: (with hastily written grammatical errors corrected from the original): "Because I am flexible, and because if my actions causes someone else to stumble I should alter them, so I will change it out of consideration for others."

Looking back at it, I feel that this first response was good, and possibly even the right attitude to have.  In the future I will try to be more aware of readers in regards to this.  At the moment I don't think that the word was a strict requirement for getting the core message across.  But I *do* believe it provided the most accurate portrayal and the correct level of emphasis for the context, which was the reason I chose it to begin with.

At the time however, after giving my first response but after more thought on the matter, I responded again saying that I felt it would be inappropriate to remove it in the specific case questioned.  For one thing I thought it most accurately reflected the disposition of those I was talking about in the article, and I had not chosen to use the word lightly, idly, or flippantly.  **But most importantly**  I felt changing it after the fact might set in me a dangerous mental precedent.  I don't think that I should filter the core of what I have to say.  My stating this caused an argument over which I became rather agitated.

--

Concessions:

I am aware that words can, and often do, carry certain energies that one can find psychologically (or spiritually depending on your assumptions about the nature of reality) assaulting.  This is especially true if one finds these words directed at them personally in anger or attack, which is why such behavior is not generally acceptable.

Certain words are not always appropriate or acceptable in specific contexts, such as is the case for most people within their school or place of work, particularly when engaged in any form of customer relations.

There is another word related particularly with violence and racism used by many rap artists which I myself would not choose, excepting possibly in quotation of another, and then only to demonstrate something other than those usual implications.  But my refrain from its use personally does not mean I automatically censor someone entirely based on *their* use of it.  Which is not to say I couldn't become tired from hearing it repeatedly and nearly exclusively, and therefore avoid such expression much (but not all) of the time.

--

My Stance:

In loose reference to the J. R. R. Tolkien creation myth, as an analogy: Words are like keys on a piano.  We have an entire spectrum of words with which to express the melody that we are a part of playing.  Some people hammer away on the same key in every part of every tune, disrupting the song.  Others boycott a select key or two even when they are actually called for by their part, and refuse to participate in the song whenever someone else touches one of them, called for or not!

My perspective can be expressed by the following, admittedly imperfect, analogy:  Imagine one chose to always be offended by the color yellow.  When ever someone wore yellow, tastefully or not, they would say:

"Do you HAVE to wear THAT color?  Is that the ONLY thing in your wardrobe?  Are so poor as to be unable to wear anything ELSE?  I am sorry, but I just cannot be near anyone who would lack the fashion sense to avoid yellow at all times no matter the circumstances!  There is NEVER an acceptable time to wear THOSE types of colors!  It reveals the true color of someones heart!: That they are Cowardly!  That one thing tells me everything I need to know about a person's character, the internal corruption and state of their soul!  What do you think Jesus would say if he saw you wearing THAT color?  Do you think <insert some other person believed to be admired by the target of criticism here> would ever wear that color?  God hates cowards and yellow is a cowards color which I abhor!  Aren't you ashamed of yourself for this?  Well I will be praying very hard for you so that God helps you see our truth on this issue!"

So instead of listening to our culture, instead of addressing the very serious issues of our day, instead of working for the plight of the less fortunate, instead of combating the enormous abuses and corruption and lying and cheating and stealing and murdering of our nations leadership (who claim to be 'Christian'), instead of THESE things people want to spend all their time attempting to force contrite social delicacies onto people and filter out every message and messenger that doesn't conform perfectly to their delicate sensibilities!

This is called 'legalism' in some circles, or 'absolutism' in others.  It is enforcing the letter of the law and ignoring the intent!

"You can't use this word!  You can't crush grain on the sabbath!"  But the law was made for man (and woman)!

If a certain word best fits the needed usage, that's the word you should use!  Don't quote me about 'no idle word from your mouth', because I did NOT choose it idly!  I chose it with a very specific and conscientious intent.  It was the word that most precisely expresses what needed to be portrayed.  Otherwise I would have chosen a different word.  And even if I hadn't, that is no reason to shut off and avoid a message.

Yoda in 'The Empire Strikes Back' was brilliant character design precisely because he illustrated the fact that one should never judge a book by it's cover!

Finally, my illustration was not using the word in question in any of the ways which I have conceded are inappropriate.  I choose it precisely because I, being capable of choosing any word that best suited the circumstance, believed it most accurately represented the views of those with the disposition I was actively scrutinizing in the discussion.

--

Supporting My Argument:

I feel inclined to respond to this issue using the words of Lao Tzu:

True Virtue is not virtuous.
Therefore it has virtue.
Superficial virtue never fails to be virtuous.
Therefore it has NO virtue.
True virtue does not "act" (pretend or 'behave')
And has no alterior motives.
Superficial virtue "acts" (pretends and 'behaves')
And always has alterior motives.
...
Propriety "acts" and if you do not respond they will roll up their sleeves and threaten you.
Thus, when the Tao is lost there is virtue.
When virtue is lost there is humaneness.
When humaneness is lost there is rightness.
And when rightness is lost there is propriety.
Now Propriety is the external appearance of loyalty and sincerity, and it is the beginning of disorder.
-Lao Tzu (Tao te Ching)

This means that being so focused on external formalities causes one to miss what is truly right and important.  Sometimes what is 'right' is socially 'wrong' and vice versa.

If you look at the behavior of the classic western example of morality, he would have rolled somewhere between neutral and chaotic good, right next to Robbin Hood, when created using a dungeons and dragons character sheet; he was apposed to the strictly 'lawful' (despite quotes of his not destroying a letter of it).  And speaking of the western example, since the 'The Tao' is not the usual frame of reference for most people with so strict of a of language filter, lets examine what the 'chaotic to neutral good' version had to say, shall we?  Personally I prefer Lao Tzu in this case to the Western equivalent, but:

You clean the outside of the cup and dish, but inside they are full of greed and self-indulgence. Blind Pharisee! First clean the inside of the cup and dish, and then the outside also will be clean.
...
You are like whitewashed tombs, which look beautiful on the outside but on the inside are full of the bones of the dead and everything unclean. In the same way, on the outside you appear to people as righteous but on the inside you are full of hypocrisy and wickedness.
...
You build tombs for the prophets and decorate the graves of the righteous. And you say, ‘If we had lived in the days of our ancestors, we would not have taken part with them in shedding the blood of the prophets.’ So you testify against yourselves that you are the descendants of those who murdered the prophets. Go ahead, then, and complete what your ancestors started!
...
Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You travel over land and sea to win a single convert, and when he becomes one, you make him twice as much a son of hell as you are.

The reason I prefer Lao Tzu in this case is because, as quotes such as the latter indicate, the almighty was clearly not present the day Dale Carnegie was passed out, and thus his rude way of speaking was completely ineffective when it came to winning opponents to his point of view.  (Or as one of my producers once told me: "A sh** sandwich must always be served on complement bread.")  The direct result of his insolence was, by all written accounts, even less pleasant than it's recent recreation by a certain, now infamous, anti-Semite in his film: "Passion of the Guy who rudely pointed out all the lies and hypocrisy of the authority in his culture while defending the rights and humanity of the foreigners, outcasts, untouchables, and poor."  I don't want anti-semites making snuff films about the results of my indifference towards socially intelligent communication, so I am in this case giving preference to Lao Tzu over 'the only standard that we need'.

On the other hand, I had the Bible crammed down MY throat for 25 years!  I was keep locked up in the house, home schooled, and brainwashed with audio tapes played to me in my sleep!  For which facts, combined with our economic status due to the illegitimate teenage pregnancy (me), I have grown up constantly humiliated, ostracized, and socially stunted.  The upside of all of this is that unlike most people unable to defend themselves against the mainstream use of it, I actually KNOW what it says!  Well meaning as most individual Christians might be, the Christian religion 'group think' as a whole is today exactly the same as the one that its 'standard' was arguing with 2k years ago.

So "God" told you before I was born that I was going to grow up and tell people the truth they didn't want to hear did he?  Well guess what!  It is not "the world" that needs a double barrel full of the truth!  It is you!

--

The Koran says:

Do not tamper with the property of orphans, but strive to improve their lot until they reach maturity.  Give just weight and full measure; we never charge a soul with more than it can bear.  Speak for justice, even if it affects your own kinsmen. Be true to the covenant of God.
-Koran Sura 6:152 (Penguin Classics 1995 edition)

Or the TRUE meaning of it all, again from the Western frame of reference:

Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world.
James 1:27

I understand this to mean: Look out for the less fortunate!  For the underdog!  And don't get caught up in the lies, hypocrisy, greed or mere social appearances of righteousness (such as choosing to take offense over a single word)!

--

Conclusion:

After discussing many of the issues above with her, I was dismissed with: well I understand that you have been under a lot of stress lately.

I think that is an understatement!  My whole Universe has been turned upside down.  In the last few years I have come to realize:

1) My inherited Religion, Nation, and Political Party are not the force for all that is truthful, righteous and just in this world as I was brainwashed to believe, but are in fact a cover for lying murdering thieves and hypocrites, the local and even international bullies!  All of this is in line with its history of slavery and genocide!  Some know it, some ignore it, some refuse to acknowledge it, and others just write it off.

There is in practice no actual 'black and white'!  Many of the 'bad guys' are actually good, and many of the 'good guys' are actually bad.  But mostly it is all just self assuring exclusive social clubs that assume the worst of anyone that doesn't act and talk and express beliefs that are just like theirs.

2) Marriage is not an unbreakable vow that one must take or stand beside because it is the 'right thing to do'.  It can be a horrible and abusive institution that should not be tolerated by anyone.  I learned this the hard way.

3) My 'Dream Career' is not as advertised, it can be a very abusive environment, and it is totally centered around making more money for investors at whatever cost.  (Although I am grateful to my current employers for a much needed break.)

4) Evolution looks pretty real to me after I successfully wrote a software application that simulated it and revealed that intelligent behavior CAN emerge naturally from randomness.  And it just makes sense once you take the time to understand it.  (Although I always knew something was wrong with the account of Genesis.)

5) My youngest Brother who was good at everything and loved by everyone, and the one person in my family who seemed to truly see a lot of what I what I see, decided it was better not to live and therefore abandoned all of us, including me, greatly reducing in the process the solid security I felt remaining at least within my immediate family.

And these are just *some of the highlights.

As an adult I am forced to completely rebuild my internal map and understanding of absolutely everything about the world from the ground up.  I am neither secular, nor religious, yet just enough of each to often offend the other.  I am prone to social discomfort due to many unpleasant social experiences starting even in early childhood due in part to professing the limiting perspectives I inherited without question.

I have bouts of depression that can last for days to the extent I can't be bothered to get out of bed, or sometimes eat or drink, let alone leave the apartment.  (As if I know where to go and what to do when I do.)  And for desert I just had a helping of kidney stones over the summer, I suspect due to lack of liquids on said such days.

So yeah, I have had some stress lately!  But none of this has anything to do with whether or not everything I am saying is actually true.  I recall a similarly vocal hero of hers being dismissed in the same manner, with the accusation that he was 'possessed by a demon', when his telling the truth didn't conform to the expectations of his society.  I guess his being conceived a bastard in a deeply religious culture that stoned adulteresses to death, and his being a child prodigy (recognized early by even their own scholars), helped him develop unfashionable perspectives of society that have since been plastered over with more palatable explanations such as: blind faith guarantees pleasures in the afterlife; manifest destiny; or even that we are fighting for 'democracy' against the 'axis of evil'.

--

In the end I did finally decided to change the word in the article.  Not because I believe it was inappropriate for the context, but because fighting against peoples stubborn insistence to choose arbitrarily to be offended over a single word was not worth obstructing the message I was putting forth there.  I think that preoccupation and petty squeamishness over vocabulary and other such closed minded and hard hearted social trivialities is a poisonous cancer which should be actively fought against.  But one must choose their battles, and this was not one I valued enough to disrupt the other issues I was trying to bring to light in that article.  Since many are unable and unwilling to hear anything not phrased just exactly to their liking, I have altered the format just so that the message might be heard even by those that limit themselves by thinking Jesus would be terribly offended if they ever sat through an 'R' rated movie.

So if you now visit 'On A Democratic Economy', the sentence containing the controversial word has been changed from: "**** off!" to "Forget it!"

From now on, do everyone a favor and ask yourself: Do I filter messages I don't want to hear simply because of the messenger or their format?  Or because it doesn't fit nicely with 'my' reality?  What you don't know can hurt you!  The truth does not conform itself to our preferences or preconceived notions about reality or propriety.  And this is a fact of which I myself am all too bitterly aware!

On the other hand, you can close your ears.  You can shelter yourself and most especially your poor defenseless vulnerable children.  Create a bubble, and spin a web of 'better' reality to trap them in so that they will stay and hide with you there forever from the real one.  Wallpaper over the rotting walls and the corrupting darkness with happy looking 'kid friendly' / 'family friendly' wallpaper.  Stay in the metaphorical 'Matrix' spun up by the networks and politicians and even your clergy.  Let them tell you who your enemies are, divide you against yourselves, and destroy you!

Crazy, but that's how it goes
Millions of people living as foes
Maybe it's not too late
To learn how to love
And forget how to hate
...
I've listened to preachers
I've listened to fools
I've watched all the dropouts
Who make their own rules
One person conditioned to rule and control
The media sells it and you live the role
~Ozzy

I don't promise I am perfect.  I don't promise I will always get it right, or never make a mistake.  I don't claim to hear or be the voice of God.  But I have been actively seeking truth no matter where it leads me, and trying to do what I think is right as best I can by seeking out and reading the greatest minds in history on the strategies of war, on religion, and politics, and economics, and the sciences, the great poets and myths...  I try to see the truth put forward by all the greats that most only know by name (if that).  And thus far it all forms a big consistent picture.  It is ALL connected.  My aim with this blog is to display the connections I see, and reality as best as I can see it!

I don't see any group of people as my (or our) 'enemies'.  I don't see 'God' (however you see him / her / it), nor 'Satan' as my enemy.  Nor belief in them, or not...  My (our) real enemy is the destructive sets of memes being run in active simulation over the distributed social network of human consciousnesses, some of which run with the God memes and some not.  Either way, *this* is all a virus check!

I know that you're afraid... you're afraid of us.
You're afraid of change.
I don't know the future.
I didn't come here to tell you how this is going to end.
I came here to tell you how it's going to begin.
I'm going to hang up this phone,
and then I'm going to show these people what you don't want them to see.
I'm going to show them a world without you.
A world without rules and controls,
without borders or boundaries.
A world where anything is possible.
Where we go from there is a choice I leave to you.
~Neo; The Matrix; 1999

--