July Musings 2015

[Jonathan Barlow Gee]

"Communication and Freedom Musings"
Jon Gee, July, 2015, Tallahassee, Florida.

ignorance leads to arrogance. dim wits are always exclusive, and genius ever inclusive, of any and all alien ideas. having an open mind therefore often means having to absorb an abnormal amount of criticism. however ill intentioned these critics may seem, they are only experiencing the natural human reactions of jealousy and greed having been confronted with a new and alien idea. the human brain naturally attempts to defend itself against overwhelming stimuli, and a new idea is experienced as exactly that. when such "inspiration" occurs to an individual alone, it is called "divine," yet if they share the contents of their revelation, and "put god's words in a man's mouth," then the crowds of their peers will eventually persecute them for it. A new idea is just a "splinter in the mind's eye" being attacked in self-defense by the unaware "white blood cells" of society.

one cannot rush nor force creativity. like the uncertainty-induced superposition of an electron in an orbital shell collapses into a specific probability well when "viewed" (because to "view" it we have to strike it with a photon, and doing so alters its trajectories), creativity under scrutiny is constipated, retarded, inbred and deformed by comparison to its counterpart, creativity in absentia of deadlines, observers and rules. If "creativity" is like a "field" of potential-energy, then "productivity" is like a "well" of kinetic-probability.

by forcing "creativity on command," one only succeeds in separating "creativity" from "productivity," and achieving only "productivity" by itself, forsaking "creativity" altogether. The result of the mechanization of modern, post-industrial / post-electronic human populations' societies is what Marx referred to as the "alienation of labor" or the distinction of the worker from their works; thus, a machinist in an assembly line could turn one screw into one part that would, later, be assembled into some kind of machine about the design and function of which that machinist themselves might know and understand absolutely nothing.

combatting the tides requires us to enlighten at lightning speed those who are eager to dog-pile on us and gnaw away at our self-esteems for their own momentary pleasure. But the tide flows both ways, and given enough time, every trend reverses - such is the source of so-called "blow-back," those tricky "unexpected consequences" that cryptographers and statisticians are paid to try to plan around and avoid. Because this pendulum-like reversal of fortunes has occurred all throughout history (the "dialectic" defined as competing oppositions by Hegel), many consider it a valid tradition to repeat these same mistakes of the past again in the modern times, now today. However, despite the tremendous amount of surplus energy this indescribable force has that moves these "tides" in mankind's minds and in human social expressions, geopolitical events, etc. one can only harness its momentum for their own cause 1/2 of the total amount of duration one will be alive. The other 1/2 of the time the pendulous tide is ebbing away from our chosen personal causes, and thus carrying us away from safety in its riptide. However, there is another way of handling the difficult conundrum posed by trying to harness the political tides and benefit from both sides, and that is to ignore them both, and to not be involved in politics or social movements' causes at all. It is up to each individual to choose which is the best "winner's script" for themselves to adhere to, and what is right for one will not be right for all. Peace.

"love songs" (the lowest common denominator of communication) unite us all at the most basic and primitive of levels of our self-consciousness, a level below even our "super-ego's" ability to "shame" and "control."

the role of music in communication - a monumental topic in itself - aside, "love" is the dominantly prevalent theme for ALL communication (as opposed to "hate," "fear" or other "negative" emotional states) because it is the primary motivation for communication to occur (unless one includes killing one's interlocutor as a successful method for teaching them your idea). The reason "love" is dominantly prevalent is NOT, however, ONLY due to it being the motive for all (sane) forms of communication. "Love" is also the greatest LIE, the greatest fiction, the greatest "carrot on a stick" used to animate the inane into self-preservation, besides the concept of "god." Chemical attraction exists, pair-bonding exists, monogamy exists, but the oversimplification of all these emotional expressions into the single term, "love," places too much emphasis on their combined totality, and too little on the importance of each component's individual significance. If you have X, Y and Z, then you have their "total" or "combined sum," it is said, but "love" - being an emotional quality rather than a quantitative commodity - cannot be considered as merely the "sum of its parts," but REQUIRES - for its definition to maintain a romantic mystery - a missing, "x-factor" element that defies description or quantification. Because "love" can therefore NEVER be entirely defined, it remains a "fictional" premise, or rather, a "hypothesis" that cannot be proven.

a premise that cannot be tested for material verification as representative of the reality of solid material objects is of no value within the context of a reality defined by such. Likewise, a lie, a misleading statement, a fiction or deception has, at most, zero positive value, use or benefit within such a context; and, more frequently, such intentionally misleading deceptions have MORE negative value or detriment than even an untestable hypothesis can.

The majority of modern media-sources are liars.Their justification is that it is not possible to convey accuracy via materially mediated self-expression: "you cannot package the truth." The result of this is irony in art: "what IS art?" Nevertheless, "a lot of truth IS said in jest," and so satire, which charactures by amplifcation undesirable traits, remains Honest, if NOT exactingly Accurate. "Stand-up" and "sketch" comedy has proven a last refuge for modern philosophical "gad flies" who oppose the dominant paradigm in "corporate journalist" news-media. Aside from abstract art, or "art for its own sake" - such as cartooning the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) or urinating in public in protest against having to buy a state permit to urinate in public and call it "street art" - only "comedy" has been such a safe-haven for modern free-thinkers; however parody and satire as a genre of "art" are no more immune from infiltration, cooption and fomenting opposition against leading to legal actions by our presently draconian, machiavellian politicians, who seek to increase their own authority by such, than are the "airwaves" broadcasting television and the internet as a technology. Already the class-war has shut down "pirate bay" and "silk road" online, but how long until websites such as "the onion" or television programs like "the daily show" are forcibly reformed as being "for editorial content only" - like Bill O'reily or Glenn Beck - by the imposition of legally enforced content control paid for by fines on those who do not consent? How long until they demand "disclaimers" be included in ALL independent journalism or individually produced works? It has already begun with youtube embargoes on "we are change" and master-card on "wikileaks." If "corporations are people," then humanity has been reduced to sub-human enslavement.

and which of their natural rights is anyone left with after agreeing to enter into debt-slavery? The government blames the people for trusting banks; but then, instead of punishing banks for predatory lending, it punishes the people by promoting the bankers into politics, and drowning the banks with free government-approved counterfeit money to insure they can continue and expand their practice of such tactics. The people are considered bank-property because they signed an agreement with the bank to provide collateral for the bank's loans in general in the form of an interest rate on their own loan from it in specific. If they cannot declare "bankruptcy" legally, and the bank will no longer lend to them, they are forgotten about and left out in the cold. So when, on an international level, we hear that the devaluation of the Euro-zone fiat-currency relative to other national currency markets has led to the IMF leveraging their debt-structure and threatening to seize Greek "austerity program" money saved by the government there, we should not be either surprised nor confused about it. Greece was chosen to "go first" in this approach to international debt-recollection because it is the "birthplace of democracy," and if they vote to end austerity to pay off their national debt (borrowing money is a bottomless pit nearly impossible to get out of once one has fallen for its "glass floor" trickery) it may be hailed as a victory by the banks over democracy. Corporate media can call democracy "inherently flawed" by the trait that people, even as "informed" citizens, are suckers for "free money" and banks fall prey to the temptation of offering them "promissory notes" as such. Internationally, the IMF is doing what, in America, has been done by the Federal Reserve overseen, "FDIC insured" banks - predatory lending, coercing customers into dangerous debt-structures, and then collapsing these in upon them by recalling their loans at the maximum inconvenient time. If the IMF can recall Greek debt at a whim, simply because Greek international debt exists, and the result of this would be bankrupting the Greek equivalent of US Social Security, then the ONLY logical way for the people of Greece to continue their survival at current expense-rates is to default on the debt, declare the national economy of Greece insolvent and the government institution bankrupt, and refuse all international loans from then on. The government should be purged of those with vested financial interests in corporations, especially banks guilty of predatory lending, and the new government should tax international trade by corporations extremely heavily and levy fines with steep interest rats for any corporation unwilling to pay for the privilege of doing business in Greece. But instead of this, for example, we here in the US have just allowed our own corrupt federal politicians to "fast track" the "TPP" which, like "NAFTA" before it, will authorize the creation of an "oversight commission" (alike the IMF) in charge of distributing funds to "friendly" business interests only, and depriving these funds from the more equal playing-field at present by fines against corporations who oppose such (regulated) "free trade" agreements.

get wise. Governments are just gangs of extortionists, paid for by their citizen's labor in the form of direct taxation on their income without their prior, informed consent. Taxation is just a "shake-down." Police are just muscle for the government and its central bank - the black-shirts, the Pinkertons, the scabs and strike-breakers. They are "fascists" in the classical terms, and today could be called "economic hit-men," but either way, their strategies are the same as the Italian mafia, called "la cosinostra," identified as one of the earliest models for what we consider in modern times "gangsterism." This model, also adopted by Mussolini to bolster Italian anti-communist, pro-corporatist fascism, involves prioritizing the interests of "family" and loved-ones "above all else" then doing anything, "by any means necessary," to aggressively, even preemptively, "defend" their "interests;" this creed flourished in Italy because it was smiled upon at the time by the Catholic Papacy, who forgave fascism at first for its seemingly favoring the "family unit," but the Papacy has since realized corporatism is merely a neologism for age-old bankers' greed. In Germany, the concept of "national socialization," (the process of "imminent domain" collectivizing and communalizing of all "public goods") became so popular under the Third Reich, they avoided the moral questions involved in HOW Hitler was going about "solving" the "Jewish question." Hitler promised to revenge the German people by punishing the backers of WW1 who had pulled their funding from Germany's war machine at the final moment; e.g. he promised to punish the bankers and their accountants, who were predominantly Yiddish - at least according to the NAZIs. However, once the average German conscript realized what they were defending was the Hebrew Holocaust, brought about only to justify "re"-claiming Palestine and establishing a base for European business-interests (the Rothschild bankers) in the predominantly Arabic Middle-East, they were as disgusted with Hitler as, now, would the average American soldier be with George W. Bush if they found out the conditions of "torture camps" such as "Camp X-ray" in "Gitmo" Bay, Cuba, let alone about the "black-sites" and private prisons involved in housing the relatives of those falsely accused in the ongoing "war on terror." Fascism is not capitalism. Capitalism involves competition between multiple parties in either a free or regulated market. Fascism involves the state owning all corporate industries and taxing the labor more or less of those sectors it chooses.

People are more prone to be angry about historical events from the distant past that didn't occur to them directly than they are likely to be able to remember the charitible, moral causes they pretended to care about online even five minutes ago, let alone from a year ago, or three years ago.

expression of interiorized, frustrated futile angst comprises 9/10ths of all human communication.

on "independence day" we celebrate the Luciferian / deist, enlightenment-era ideal that "liberty" and "free-will" are preferable to "salvation" if by "determinism." Like the bold heroes of Greek, Vedic, Norse and Mayan legends, the "titans" and "nefilim," our "pride goeth before our fall." In all these cases, eventually the conquering doctrine of unifying global monotheism under the Roman cult of Mithra has replaced them in their regions. The history of "western civilization" is that of the Roman Empire, briefly inspired by Greek Democracy and Plato's "Republic" ideas, but eventually prone to the same deification of their political leader as the Pharaoh worshippers of Egypt, or as Moses trembling before the "bush that burned but was not consumed." So let us understand we are on the side of the majority of humanity - the side of forgiving ourselves of our own "original sin" - and thus opposed to "tyranny over the minds of men" in ANY and ALL forms. When a husband beats a wife, we are there to try to stop him; when an elected politician commits ethnic cleansing motivated genocide, we are there to repay him in kind by ethnically cleansing his political allies; when King George oppresses the dissenting votes of emigrant colonists in Parliament, and they consider this dictatorial, we are there to take up arms beside them and call him out for his crimes; when George W. Bush commits genocide against Muslim Arabs in retaliation for the crimes of Saudi Arabia and Israel, his own nation's allies, we are there with the Palestinian children throwing rocks at tanks without regard that, if caught, we could end up "black bagged" to a torture camp and "detained" indefinitely, even for decades. We, the people (the vast majority of our species) are fans of underdogs, friends to victims, and even more charitable voluntarily than when coerced by taxation. We care about each other, and will come to our neighbor's rescue should a stranger ever attack them. But we must also, collectively, realize we are on the side of the "light-bringer" and the "false angel" who "rebelled" against the monotheist idea of god and, as a result, was "cast down" into "hell" according to the monotheist religious scriptures. Our enemy curses personal knowledge as "false light," and couches all knowledge as "belief," and specific historical facts with material evidence as "belief in lies." They claim, "you're either with us, or you're with the terrorists," and we know this draws an evermore encroaching "line in the sand" between evangelical monotheists and everybody else on planet earth. For them to have more, we must have less; this is the injustice and these the chains at which we chafe restlessly for freedom.

""When it is stated in Genesis that God said to Adam, “Only from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you must not eat,” it follows as a matter of course that Adam really has not understood this word, for how could he understand the difference between good and evil when this distinction would follow as a consequence of the enjoyment of the fruit. When it is assumed that the prohibition awakens the desire one acquires knowledge instead of ignorance, and in that case Adam must have had knowledge of freedom, because the desire was to use it. The explanation is therefore subsequent. The prohibition induces in him anxiety, for the prohibition awakens in him freedom’s possibility. What passed by innocence as the nothing of anxiety has now entered into Adam, and here again it is a nothing-the anxious possibility of being able. He has no conception of what he is able to do; otherwise-and this it what usually happens-that which comes later, the difference between good and evil, would have to be presupposed. Only the possibility of being able is present as a higher form of ignorance, as a higher expression of anxiety, because in a higher sense it both is and is not, because in a higher sense he both loves it and flees from it.""

""Freedom’s possibility is not the ability to choose the good or the evil. The possibility is to be able. In a logical system, it is convenient to say that possibility passes over into actuality. However, in actuality it is not so convenient, and an intermediate term is required. The intermediate term is anxiety, but it no more explains the qualitative leap than it can justify it ethically. Anxiety is neither a category of necessity nor a category of freedom; it is entangled freedom, where freedom is not free in itself but entangled, not by necessity, but in itself.""

""Anxiety may be compared with dizziness. He whose eye happens to look down into the yawning abyss becomes dizzy. But what is the reason for this? It is just as much in his own eye as in the abyss, for suppose he had not looked down. Hence, anxiety is the dizziness of freedom, which emerges when the spirit wants to posit the synthesis and freedom looks down into its own possibility, laying hold of finiteness to support itself. Freedom succumbs to dizziness. Further than this, psychology cannot and will not go. In that very moment everything is changed, and freedom, when it again rises, sees that it is guilty. Between these two moments lies the leap, which no science has explained and which no science can explain. He who becomes guilty in anxiety becomes as ambiguously guilty as it is possible to become.""

- Søren Kierkegaard, "The Concept of Anxiety" (1844)

cf. https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Søren_Kierkegaard

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Søren_Kierkegaard

and https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/The_Concept_of_Anxiety

the true meaning of freedom is being able to do anything you want, and wanting to do nothing which you can.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P-sWReV2DDQ

freedom is what exists beyond control.

if all people stopped giving advice to each other and sharing their personal opinions about how other people should live,

if we all admitted we are each a unique individual and no one's own experience will ever naturally be identical to anyone else's,

if instead of conformity we advocated independent thinking, personal "free" time and above all relaxing,

and if we could settle for flat-line contentment instead of riding the emotional "roller coaster" of troughs of angst coupled with peaks of bliss...

then the difference between the human species and all other sentient life on earth, as well as between humanity and the ecosphere in general, would be less extreme, and thus reactions across it less intense,

then the "useful" work and tools of states, religions and corporations would all be able to be extracted from the "opportunistic" applications of them, and this set of working tools be applied only for "useful" projects,

then the goals we apply ourselves to can be more easily streamlined for efficiency, making those lesser goals which serve as impediments to larger, later goals able to be disposed of more easily,

and then we may each evolve on our own, at our own rate, without expecting interference in our development by others, nor being expected to offer our advice to them.

how much of your waking life has been used up just now exposing your senses to the opinions of other people, probably stupider than you, and then having to focus your brain on filtering out their stupidity to try to find some grain of validity, whether there was ever any intended or not, only to then share your own opinions based on this thought process of sorting out the "kernel of truth" from the "leviathan" of social issues? Has this benefitted any of us at all to have spent so much of our lifetimes doing, especially being as how we are the "first generation" to grow up with the yet-new invention of the internet?

don't blame the people for the failures of their institutionalizationism.

it is wrong the blame the people for the failings of their institutions.

it is right to blame the institutions for failing the people.

institutions, without people, are only empty buildings.

people, without institutions, are reminded of their freedom.

if a government sides with corporations to build military adventurism, the people have the right to dissolve that government, and they should exercise that right before that government decides to liquidate its majority opposition.

Just so, if a teacher focuses only on testing and not on cognitive comprehension of their curriculum, then they have cheated and failed their own students.

if any "guide" or "leader" proves incompetent and derelict, unable or unwilling to perform up to standardized expectations in their own chosen field, they deserve disciplinarian intervention. Don't you agree? That's what they've done to us. If George W. Bush were sitting in a 5$ dunking booth at the book-fair to raise awareness about breast-cancer, wouldn't you stop and peg that target a couple times extra just to watch him go splash? I know I would.

if the sewage system were as endemically broken as the education system, people might complain about it a bit more than they do. Instead, they work mac-jobs to pay the interest on their student debt. They are chattel, wage-slaves, neo-feudalist serfs.

I have serious empathy for all my peers shouldered with unfair student debt, and I don't "blame the victims" here either. Highly aggressive "credit lending" programs were busily paying for college roofies at the same time they were accruing "value" in the mortgage of those college kids' parents' houses. There are not "bubbles." It's all ONE BIG BUBBLE. When the "asian contagion" hit after the Enron scandal, and the "tech bubble burst" and all those "startup / small-business" loans banks had made to eager techy "dot-commers" were recalled, it destroyed the playing field for our generation. I think we've just given up on it by now.

and here's an idea: NEVER TRUST BANKS :) ! (fiat is ALWAYS counterfeit, NO MATTER WHAT). They will SAY they're giving you "free money;" but they will come to collect everything you own in the end.

but you can no more blame the people for being fooled by banks into accepting "fiat" currency (AGAIN) today than you could blame the infant who suckles a diseased breast, not knowing its mother's milk is rotten compared to the rest.

what we should be focusing our energy on, as a generation of human beings alive upon this planet during these alignments in our solar system, is designing our own format for "institutions" such as "government" or "banks;" taking the parts we "like" or think "work," and leaving those that don't; modifying them, comparing these, co-creating a working model to be shared freely among all; etc. Don't like this "NWO"? Design your own; or better yet: avoid "institutions" altogether and design your own shangrila. "Wasting one's time" on "pure imagination" and "pure fantasy" is still a more satisfactory, fulfilling, rewarding and healthy profession than "law enforcement" or "teacher."

no neck bends so easily to subjugation as that which has become accustomed to carrying behind it the load of many deep events, and who has become convinced this lot is of less karmic value in quality than it actually is by quantity alone. or, as Nietzsche put it, "during peace-time, the warrior attacks himself." When it is time, we will all stand up and fight.

diplomacy among the elitists sows dissent amongst the masses.

diplomacy among the masses sows dissent amongst the elitists.

let us say that there are two groups, and that, collectively, these groups will behave in the same way as the average member of each group would behave. Let us establish these groups as the "elite" and the "masses," and, by the rule that the average member maybe taken as representative of the whole group, let us propose these two groups constitute, in relation to one another, a special form of the Nash equilibrium principle, similar to the "prisoner's dilemma" example thereof.

""Imagine two prisoners held in separate cells, interrogated simultaneously, and offered deals (lighter jail sentences) for betraying their fellow criminal. They can "cooperate" (with the other prisoner) by not snitching, or "defect" by betraying the other. However, there is a catch; if both players defect, then they both serve a longer sentence than if neither said anything. Lower jail sentences are interpreted as higher payoffs.

The prisoner's dilemma has a similar matrix as depicted for the coordination game, but the maximum reward for each player is obtained only when the players' decisions are different. Each player improves their own situation by switching from "cooperating" to "defecting", given knowledge that the other player's best decision is to "defect". The prisoner's dilemma thus has a single Nash equilibrium: both players choosing to defect.

What has long made this an interesting case to study is the fact that this scenario is globally inferior to "both cooperating". That is, both players would be better off if they both chose to "cooperate" instead of both choosing to defect. However, each player could improve their own situation by breaking the mutual cooperation, no matter how the other player possibly (or certainly) changes their decision.""

- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nash_equilibrium#Prisoner.27s_dilemma

in short, if (or when) there is competition between these two groups - the "elite" and the "masses" - and there are different goals adopted by their differing types of members, then the survival of one will depend on the death of the other; but when there is cooperation between these groups, and similar goals are shared by both groups' members - such as the goal of "survival" itself - then no such "Nash equilibrium" condition exists. If both sides betray one another, there is apparent short-term benefit for each by doing so, but the long-term detriment of having no calisthenic resistance will be worse than the short-term benefits are of use to either side. Thus, according to this premise, the BEST strategic tactic for survival for the "masses" and / or the "elites" is cooperation between both their groups, however the MOST LIKELY one employed will probably remain that competition occurs between them, and that the suffering of one will mean the survival of the other.

it is interesting to note, in the context of the Nash equilibrium principle and, in particular, the "prisoner's dilemma," in relation to the two groups - the "elite" and the "masses" - that when the equilibrium exists between the players (the 2 prisoners or the 2 groups), it is when they "betray" or "compete against" each other, and as such leads to ultimately a "zero-sum game," because the ultimate result for both and each will be worse due to the actions taken by both and each in attempt to benefit only themselves alone. Again, IF cooperation were considered a viable factor, then survival would not require competition; likewise, IF these 2 groups - the "elites" and the "masses" - cannot cooperate for their own mutual benefit, then neither will eventually be able to survive.

so, as is often the case, there is a greater real difference between the strategic tactics of "cooperation" / "diplomacy" and "competition" / "dissent" than there actually is between members of these two self-selective perceptual groups (the "elite" and the "masses"). "Elitists" (economic or intellectual) and those who self-identify with the gross "working-class" or "proletariat" are as alike as these strategies are different. The real fulcrum point of distinction between these groups is at the crux of these differing strategic tactics - whoever discovers and employs the tactic of "competition" and "dissent" first will benefit more in the short-term, and prove to be the downfall of their entire species in the long-term. When either group cooperates and acts diplomatically within itself among its members, it is dangerous to the survival of members in (an)other competing group(s). When members of BOTH groups engage in diplomatic and cooperative strategies with one another, then they will have defeated their own inevitable death.

because the survival of each of these groups - the "masses" and the "elites" - is symbiotic and dependent on the survival of the other, they maybe considered "equal" players to one another, each with an "equal" amount of bargaining power to the other, regardless of the fact that, demographically, one group consists of a very small percentage of the total population, while the other accounts for all the rest. This "balance of power" between the "elite" 1% and the "masses" of the remaining 99% of our species has occurred due to this condition of "zero-sum" equilibrium being "human nature," as opposed to it being within our species capacity to overcome the savage instinct to kill and to compete, and to work together as a species to meet goals agreed on by the majority. In other words, because it is "human nature" to have a small central self-concept compared to one's many memories and opinions, it is likewise the nature of the human species to be divided between a very small group of "elitists" who think themselves superior, and a very large group designated as the "masses," who may disagree with the "elites," but who - because of this situation occurring due to innate tendencies of biological life-forms - are exactly equal in terms of their "authority" or "power" to them. Just as the 1 "ego" controls the remaining "mind" (memories, opinions, plans, etc.) in an individual human being, so too do the few "elites" rise to try to control the fates of the remaining "masses," whose odds for survival would be better off without the interference of the "elites." In short, it cannot be attributed to "technological training," to "industriousness" and "gumption," nor to "opportunism" and "capitalization," nor even to "access," "privilege" and "entitlement" why or how this "elite" form. It is not the product or result of either "fiat" currency, nor the technological revolution its use has spawned, that an "elite" who - at present - define themselves as "wealthy" and "educated" have formed. It is due to the competition within the minds of all human beings alive now between their "egos" or central self-concepts, and the remainder of their conscious mind, collectively considered their "conscience."