Obama wins historic election:
Quote BBC headline: Obama wins historic election.
Comment: There is nothing historic about the election it was just a presidential election like the many that came before it. One could make a case that it was a historic victory for Obama because it is the first time a black (mixed) has been elected but it is speaking emotionally carelessly to say the election was historic.
There will be differences between the two candidates and Obama is likely to be better but he is no angel, is a slick talker who will be beholden to those who funded his election campaign and whilst there are great expectations of rescuing the US economy, it may be a delusion because the scale of economic devastation may be beyond remedy.
BBC IS SUPPOSED TO BE THE MODEL OF CORRECT ENGLISH BUT THE STANDARD OF ENGLISH AT ITS WEBSITE PROVES OTHERWISE. WHAT HAPPENED, CONFUSING HISTORIC VICTORY WITH HISTORIC ELECTION IS ACTUALLY A SIGN THAT THE PERSON IS REHASHING, HE MIXED UP WHAT HE RETRIEVED FROM HIS ROTE JUKEBOX AND IN HIS HASTE LOOKING AT THE FINAL RESULT BEFORE PUBLISHING HE FAILED TO SEE THAT WHAT HE COMPOSED DOES NOT SOUND RIGHT AND IS THEREFORE FALSE.
Not composed fresh:
If you are mindfully composing the headline fresh and not retrieving or cobbling it rote from your mental jukebox surely you will know that it was Obama’s victory that was historic and not the election that was historic and thus the fact that he confused a historic victory with a historic election is an indication what he composed was not fresh, specific for the occasion but he searched his mental jukebox and hastily selected ‘historic election’ without realizing it was inappropriate and it is ‘historic victory’ that he wanted.
Emotionally people are stirred to find inspired words to describe an occasion and in their haste and emotionally stirred state of mind, their judgment is impaired and they commit such unknowing ‘faux pas’.
What is genuine understanding?
Understanding involves perceiving something said or seen clearly as it happens and then knowing clearly what it means.
Thus in order to understand truly you must listen to or read all the words said (not just snapshots), watch the entirety of the substance and style (if present) of what is happening (not just excerpts of it) and then you understand what is being said to you or what you are watching. Thus genuinely understanding, you can know if what is said is true or false or nonsense or makes no sense. Your understanding is always specific, specifically for a particular occasion.
On the other hand, you can falsely understand if you only tune in to hear certain words or phrases, you see what is happening in snapshots and then based on those snapshots you consult your mental library of explanations and having found one or a few explanations that appear to fit what you heard or saw, you convince yourself you understood when this is false understanding, it is rehashing a nonspecific explanation to give a semblance of understanding what has now occurred or is said to you.
SO LONG AS SOMEONE HAS JUST TAKEN SNAPSHOTS OF WHAT IS SAID TO HIM OR WHAT IS SEEN BY HIM AND THEN HE CONSULTS A MENTAL LIBRARY OF MEANING TO EXPLAIN WHAT HE HEARD OR SAW, IT IS NOT GENUINE UNDERSTANDING BUT FAKED REHASHED UNDERSTANDING THAT MAY NOT FIT WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED AND BE EVEN VERY DIFFERENT FROM WHAT WAS ACTUALLY SAID OR HAPPENED.
FOR UNDERSTANDING TO BE GENUINE IT MUST BE SPECIFIC FOR THE OCCASION AND REQUIRES THAT THE PERSON LISTENS OR WATCHES ATTENTIVELY THE ENTIRETY OF WHAT IS SAID OR DONE AND UNDERSTANDING WITHOUT CONSULTING ANY PRE-RECORDED EXPLANATIONS, WHAT IS SAID OR SEEN MEANS.
BECAUSE ALL STYLISH EMOTIONAL PEOPLE SEE OR HEAR IN SNAPSHOTS EVEN HASTY SNAPSHOTS AND THEY ALWAYS LAZILY MATCH WHAT THEY SEE OR HEAR WITH THEIR MENTAL DICTIONARIES AND IF THEY FIND A READY EXPLANATION THEY SATISFY THEMSELVES THEY UNDERSTAND, IF THEY FIND NO MATCH THEY SHAKE THEIR HEADS AND SAY THEY DON’T UNDERSTAND WHEN IT IS NOT OTHERS’ FAULT BUT THEIR FAULT THEY DO NOT UNDERSTAND, THEY DO NOT POSSESS GENUINE UNDERSTANDING BUT IT IS FAKED REHASHED, NON SPECIFIC UNDERSTANDING.
IT IS DANGEROUS TO TAKE SNAPSHOTS THAT MAY MISS VITAL INFORMATION AND IT IS FOOLHARDY TO APPLY READY MADE EXPLANATIONS FROM ONE’S MENTAL LIBRARY BECAUSE WHAT IS HAPPENING MAY NOT CORRESPOND TO YOUR RIGID STANDARDIZED EXPLANATIONS THAT ARE INTENDED GENERICALLY FOR MANY SITUATIONS WITH SIMILARITIES.
Ordinary people dwell in a private make believe world and they only take snapshots of whatever is said to them or what they see and because it is impossible to understand a situation based on snapshots they must consult readymade explanations or rote ‘understanding’ in their mental dictionaries to deceive themselves and others that they have understood, they possess genuine understanding when it is rehashed generalizations that may be far from true.
Even their perceptions are false so how to genuinely understand?
There is a stereotyped or consistent substance and style of whatever a stylish person perceives and thus he does not perceive objectively as it truly is and thus falsely perceiving how can he understand truly?
There is a consistent force prolonging (eg staring), changing speed and strength (eg darting eyes) or style in how people see and they always see selectively what their programs tell them to see (like) and avoid seeing what their programs tell them to avoid (dislike) and this handicap is fatal to any aspiration to see things clearly as they are.
WHAT I SAY MAY BE WRONG BUT I MAY BE RIGHT THAT EMOTIONAL PEOPLE NEVER JUST SEE BUT THEY SEE WITH ADDED EVEN INTENSE FORCE IN PROLONGING (STARING), CHANGING SPEED AND STRENGTH AND IN ADDITION THEY SEE SELECTIVELY ACCORDING TO THEIR LIKES AND DISLIKES AND THIS MEANS THEIR PERCEPTIONS ARE BIASED OR COLORED SO HOW CAN YOU TRULY UNDERSTAND WHAT IS SAID OR SEEN THAT YOUR PERCEPTION HAS COLOURED OR DISTORTED?
People don’t understand because they are robots:
You may think I am nasty and arrogant but the truth may be that people do not understand because they are robots, even their understanding is faked or rehashed from pre-recorded explanations based on false lazy snapshots of things heard or seen.
You can change a robot by reprogramming him but he remains a robot, only a changed robot. In order for someone who is a robot to understand genuinely he must transform himself from a robot to a non-robot, something he has never experienced before and it is a tall even impossible order to many who lack the wisdom, concern and dedication to extricate themselves from suffering that is mandatory as a robot to alight on genuine self assured bliss that characterizes non-robotic existence.
Stylish emotional people are like the company CEO who never does anything by himself but instructs and delegates his secretary to do everything for him and because everything gets done, he kids himself he is that wonderful and capable when it is the opposite, because he has never done anything personally himself, he cannot do so, he feels challenged if he has to do it himself. The secretary does not understand anything, she just does what she is told and so she does not understand and the conceited CEO is lost in the clouds in his own private make believe world to ever bother to understand nor is he able to.
ORDINARY STYLISH PEOPLE MAY BE ROBOTIC IN EVERYTHING, NAMELY THE WHAT AND HOW OF WHAT THEY PERCEIVE, THINK, SPEAK AND DO WHICH ARE PRE-RECORDED AND REHASHED REPEATED FROM THEIR MENTAL JUKEBOXES, EVEN THEIR UNDERSTANDING IS ROBOTIC IN THAT THEY TAKE SNAPSHOTS OF WHAT THEY HEAR OR SEE AND CONSULT AND SATISFY THEMSELVES WITH PRE-RECORDED EXPLANATIONS. ROBOTS NEVER UNDERSTAND ANYTHING, THEY ONLY DO AS THEY ARE TOLD AND YOU CAN RE-PROGRAM A ROBOT BUT IT STILL REMAINS A ROBOT. THE TALL ORDER IS TO TRANSFORM HIM OR FOR HIM TO TRANSFORM HIMSELF FROM BEING A ROBOT AS HE ALWAYS HAS BEEN TO BE A LIVE SPECIFIC TO THE OCCASION GENUINE PERSON AND SHORT OF DOING SO, HE WILL NEVER TRULY UNDERSTAND, AT BEST HE SNAPSHOT REHASH ROTE UNDERSTANDS.
Defying history:
Quote BBC headline: defying history (Obama’s election).
A person who truly understands never speaks about defying history because it is absurd. If you have any issues with history you address them but history is never an entity you can address, let alone defy or attack. You can defy another person or an object that is in your way but how can you defy history? But then if you use enough force to perceive, you will increasingly perceive you can truly defy history.
In any case, defiance has nothing to do with reason but it is all about stirring force to oppose. What meaning is there in stirring up force to oppose or attack history? So in speaking about defying history, he is speaking about stirring meaningless blind force to attack history which is not entity. Thus what is said is false and nonsense. History has been created but nobody, Obama himself has defied history except in his advanced false perception that will end in mad perception.
A lot more and a lot less:
Restricting yourself to saying things you see and know is true, there are a lot more things you can say than you currently do.
Restricting yourself to saying things you see and know is true, there are a lot less things you can say than you currently do.
This contradiction is apparent or false not real.
There are a lot of things people can see and know as true but because of their advanced false perception and logic they feel they are not entitled to say it is so when they are entitled to do so.
For instance, based on what Badawi says, you can conclude that he is a liar but many people feel that unless Badawi himself admits he lied, they cannot know for sure and therefore he should be given ‘the benefit of the doubt’. Badawi said Anwar is lying, a man of little substance and he does not have the numbers to topple him. If what he says is true, he knows he has the support of his backbenchers, why is he reluctant to call a vote of confidence that would humiliate Anwar? Thus not just here but in many other places, it can be known by someone who is discerning that Badawi (and Najib) are telling lies, he is entitled to say that truthfully.
On the other hand there are a lot of things people say which are actually beliefs, what they did not see or know as true (eg garlic is good for cancer) and they should therefore refrain from saying. There are many things that people say eg exercise, ‘healthy’ food is good for health, get plenty of good sleep which they do not see or know as true which they say as if they see and know.
THUS RESTRICTING YOURSELF ONLY TO THINGS YOU SEE AND KNOW AS TRUE, THERE ARE MANY MORE THINGS YOU CAN SAY THAT YOU NOW DO NOT SAY BECAUSE YOU DO NOT KNOW YOU ARE ENTITLED TO SAY SO AND CONVERSELY, RESTRICTING YOURSELF ONLY TO THINGS YOU SEE AND KNOW THERE ARE MANY THINGS YOU SAY THAT YOU SHOULDN’T SAY BECAUSE YOU DID NOT SEE OR KNOW THEY ARE TRUE.
Abdullah: ‘Anyone can be PM’
= v ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" />
PUTRAJAYA: It is possible for anyone from a minority group to be a nation’s leader, even in Malaysia, says Prime Minister Datuk Seri Abdullah Badawi.
Comment: Badawi is speaking foolishly. It is impossible that he sees and knows it is true but he is speaking emotionally, falsely to express as if Malaysia is such a democratic country that it isn’t.
If anyone can be the PM how come he deprives Anwar of the vote of confidence that may see Anwar as PM?
If anyone can be PM then why does UMNO play dirty in so many ways to stay in power?
Thus what he said is a lie, it is to paint himself falsely in good light or self serving.
WHEN YOU SAY ANYONE CAN BE PM, IT MEANS EVEN AN IDIOT OR CRIPPLE CAN BE PM. IF THEY CANNOT, WHY DO YOU SAY 'ANYONE'? DO YOU UNDERSTAND THE MEANING OF 'ANYONE'?EVEN SIEW MOI CAUSED A FUROR WHEN SHE WAS NOMINATED AS PKNS CHIEF AND NO NON MALAY WAS PERMITTED TO BE MB OF SELANGOR OR PERAK. JESUS SAID YOU WILL BE JUDGED FOR EVERY CARELESS WORD YOU SPEAK AND BADAWI IS SPEAKING CARELESSLY UNNECESSARILY.
It was the scariest night of the year?
IT WAS the “scariest” night of the year, but instead of chilling screams, the air was filled with light-hearted fun as Halloween revellers in Penang partied the night away in all kinds of costumes imaginable.
It is impossible that Halloween night was the scariest night of the year and it is impossible the person knew or saw that as true and therefore he is speaking what he did not see or know as true. He is speaking falsely to exaggerate what a ‘great’ night it was for the revellers.
Not everyone can become president of America:
If you think the election of Obama means anyone can become president you have false logic and perception because in order to become president you must have certain characteristics that appeal to the American electorate, you have to say things that will please them, you must be affiliated to and rise high into the Republican or Democratic parties and if you are an independent, you must be quite rich to finance an expensive campaign.
THUS NOT EVEN ANYONE CAN BE PRESIDENT OF THE US LET ALONE PM OF MALAYSIA. YOU MUST FULFILL CERTAIN CONDITIONS AND APPEAL TO THE ELECTORATE.
Talking secretly:
Because they do it themselves, they think nothing of what is occurring when it reflects dishonesty and is practicing controlled insanity, hiding one’s speech demands pretence or make believe that will become fulfilled.
It is actually foremost for your own good that you should not talk secretly cutting others off your conversation. Whatever is truthful and harmless does not need concealment, it is only something sensitive, derogatory or deceptive to others that needs secrecy.
Here too is how you deny yourself, you deny yourself all secrecy and become completely open or truthful in whatever your dealings.
Racial barrier falls as change comes to America:
This is dangerous false logic; just because a black man has been elected president does not mean racial barriers have fallen, he was not solely elected by whites but blacks in overwhelming numbers voted for him and so his victory owes much to the coloured people.
Racial barriers may have loosened but one has no right to say they have fallen because racism is still rife in sections of America.
This is an example of false dangerous that is potentially dangerous for the person and also others who happen to depend on him.
It may actually be advantage Obama:
Rather than disadvantage Obama because of his colour it may be advantage Obama because of his colour.
The rich are many and preponderantly white but they are only each entitled one vote that they are more likely to cast in an election.
The poor are many and they are likely to be coloured and in usual years they never bothered to register to vote but the emergence of a black candidate energized them to vote and it may be this, the numerical advantage of more poorer black voters over the fewer rich white voters that is responsible for the swing against McCain, not the breakdown of racial barriers. If anything, racism is very much alive and the black voters are practicing a sort of racism themselves in voting their kind in.
Last farewell to Dr Vijay:
“Last farewell to Dr Vijay” is a way of stating objectively, “Dr Vijay’s funeral” and whether realized or not, it is phrased this way to convey sadness and try to stir sadness that may be hypocritical.
Jesus said let the dead bury themselves, come with me. What is the use of all this hypocritical or genuine sadness that is never a pleasure but suffering and conditioning yourself to suffering that will descend into mad sadness?
The man who let his yes be yes only says, “the funeral of Dr Vijay” and leaves it to others if they want to be sad, “the last farewell to Dr Vijay” attempts to invoke sadness or fondness and that is stirring up emotions with karma not merit attached.
Forget JFK, Obama will be another Jimmy Carter:
It is impossible he sees and knows that Obama is another Jimmy Carter but driven by his dislike, he is prematurely scoffing at Obama without seeing and knowing what he says is true.
Thus his statement can never be guided by reason but it is driven by blind force or dislike and that never has understanding.
And so this person speaks without understanding what he speaks. He may think he speaks with reason but he is speaking with force, with a repulsive stirring of his mental force and therefore he is a man without understanding not just here but elsewhere.
And because most people who read what he said do not understand he is merely conveying his dislike for Obama, he is falsely deprecating Obama they too do not understand what they read or hear.
THE PERSON WHO THUS SPOKE HAS NO UNDERSTANDING, DOES NOT UNDERSTAND THAT HE HAS NO REASON TO SAY WHAT HE SAID BUT INSTEAD WHAT HE SAID IS DRIVEN BY BLIND FORCE, BLIND DISLIKE.
THOSE WHO HEAR OR READ DO NOT UNDERSTAND THAT WHAT THEY READ IS FALSE, MALICIOUS, DRIVEN BY FORCE WITHOUT REASON.
ONLY THE PERSON WHO READS AND UNDERSTAND THAT THE PERSON HAS NO REASON TO SAY WHAT HE SAID BUT IT IS DRIVEN BY BLIND FORCE, BLIND DISLIKE TRULY UNDERSTANDS.
Presumptuous characterisations:
It is foolish to perceive JFK as desirable, great and successful and Jimmy Carter as undesirable and a failure. It is not that black and white. This is a false perception that will end in that person’s mad perception. When you imagine ants crawling all over you and biting you when there are none then that is false perception and I tell you, it is torment never a pleasure.
Why should anyone forget JFK?
Why should anyone forget JFK or forget Obama can be JFK just because the writer thinks he is no JFK? Thus what he said is nonsense, makes no sense (that others should forget JFK just because Obama is not JFK).
Could he mean what he said, “Forget JFK” when he meant something else that Obama is not similar to JFK? If he did not mean what he said but he meant something else then what he said is false.
WHAT IS SAID IS FALSE ON SEVERAL COUNTS:
1) HE CANNOT SEE OR KNOW THE TRUTH OF WHAT HE SAID BUT HE IS SPEAKING WITHOUT SEEING OR KNOWING WHAT HE SAID IS SO MAKING A GUESS OR SPECULATING AND IT IS NOT GUIDED BY REASON BUT DRIVEN BY FORCE IN THE GUISE OF DISLIKE OR DERISION.
2) WHAT HE SAID MAKES NO SENSE BECAUSE WHAT HAS FORGETTING ABOUT JFK GOT TO DO WITH OBAMA BEING NO JFK?
3) HE DID NOT MEAN WHAT HE SAID BECAUSE HE MEANT TO SAY OBAMA IS NOT ANOTHER JFK, NOT FORGET ABOUT JFK.
4) IT IS BLIND FORCE THAT IS THE DRIVE OR SOURCE OF WHAT HE SAID, NOT GENUINE REASON.
IF HE CAN SEE AND UNDERSTAND, HOW COME HE DID NOT SEE AND UNDERSTAND THAT HE HAS NO RIGHT TO SAY WHAT HE SAID THAT COMES FROM SPECULATION NOT FACT, IS NOT WHAT HE MEANT AND IT MAKES NO SENSE?
In order to understand you must first see:
In order to understand you must be able to see clearly. If you cannot see clearly it is not possible to understand.
Jesus said people cannot see because he said, seeing they do not see and so how can they understand? Their understanding is based on force not reason and so it is not true understanding.
The Buddha said the truth is not easily seen. If the truth is difficult to see and ordinary people don’t see it, how can they truly understand?
Way of thinking:
You hear people saying ‘his way of thinking is such and such’, my way of thinking is this.
When people speak of way of thinking they are usually speaking of distinct ways that are different from others with which people think or the different views they hold and the fact that people can think differently is an unwitting acknowledgement that they are robots in the way they think that can be described as such and such a plan to which they conform rigidly and become a slave of the way of thinking rather than its masters.
The way of thinking goes beyond the many plans of thinking in each robotic person’s head but it also includes the stereotyped way he uses excessive force to prolong mental syllables, change speed and loudness whenever he thinks the many different plans of thinking that clutter his mind.
For instance people may say her way of thinking is ‘all men want sex’ whilst my way of thinking is that ‘some men want sex, others want company or whatever else’.
It is obviously false that all men want sex and although it may be more realistic or accurate to think in the way, ‘some men want sex, some don’t’ it may be deceptive because some men may conceal their desire for sex, act as if they want to help you when it is sex they are after.
Further, why should you remember and apply a rule ‘some men want sex but not all’ when you can treat each case that arises on its merits?
I do not have a way of thinking that ‘some men want sex, some don’t’ (nor all men want sex) but whenever the occasion arises when the question of sexuality and motive in friendship arises, I may consider if the motive in that case is sex without having a rule of thinking or way of thinking already recorded in my head that I consult and apply.
ALTHOUGH ALL STYLISH EMOTIONAL MEN HAVE WAYS OF THINKING, YOU DO NOT NECESSARILY HAVE TO HAVE A WAY OF THINKING IN ORDER TO THINK IF YOU THINK SPECIFICALLY FOR EACH OCCASION BEARING IN MIND THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND FORMING CONCLUSIONS SPECIFIC FOR THE CASE AND AFTER YOU HAVE CONCLUDED SUCCESSFULLY FOR THE CASE YOU MAY REMEMBER THE CONCLUSIONS YOU MADE SO THAT IN FUTURE WHEN SIMILAR CASES ARISE YOU MAY BE REMINDED OF WHAT THE CORRECT CONCLUSIONS SHOULD BE. THIS IS NOT A ROTE REHASH OF A WAY OF THINKING (EG ALL MEN WANT SEX) BUT IT IS A REMEMBERING OF THE SPECIFIC RESULTS OF THINKING PERTAINING TO A SITUATION THAT CAN BE REAPPLIED FOR A NEW SITUATION.
I do not have a way of thinking that ‘all men want sex’ or ‘some men want sex, some don’t’ but when an occasion arise when I see a man turning on his charm pestering a woman, I know he wants sex and should another similar occasion arise in the future, I remember my conclusions previously and conclude that again this man too wants sex.
Thus the person who sees a man turning on his charm on a girl may thinking he understands the situation when he thinks 'all men want sex' or 'some men want sex but some don't' but he is merely reapplying a rote rule recorded in his mental jukebox to explain the situation without actually thinking specifically for the occasion.
A set path versus a clean sheet:
A way of thinking implies a set path of thinking or a flow of thinking that is typical of a person and different in others and it denotes that person as a rigid inflexible robot. He may deceive himself he is flexible if he has different ways of thinking or views which he can activate for the situation but they are just different alternative rigid plans and he is still a robot.
A person who is not a robot has no ways of thinking, he approaches each subject with a clean sheet, without flow charts or protocols of how he should approach it. He perceives and understands all the individual elements of the case and by using true logic to add them up, he forms a conclusion of what it is all about or if the evidence is insufficient, he does not presume.
AND SO IT IS THAT ORDINARY PEOPLE HAVE A WAY OF THINKING OR THEY HAVE A LIBRARY OF MANY WAYS OF THINKING THAT THEY CAN APPLY TO A SITUATION OCCURRING AND WHEN SOMETHING OCCURS THEY TAKE SNAPSHOTS AND CONSULT THEIR LIBRARIES OF EXPLANATIONS AND HAVING FOUND EXPLANATIONS THEY SATISFY THEMSELVES THEY UNDERSTAND WHAT HAS HAPPENED WHEN THEY ARE JUST REHASHING EXPLANATIONS THAT ARE RELATIVELY OR ABSOLUTELY FALSE.
What is this way of thinking?
A person’s way of thinking comprises his views (plans that may be organised in words or not) and his logic or how he reasons that may not necessarily be genuinely logical, how he interprets or joins together pieces of data to come to a conclusion that may be true or false. This is the style in the substance of his thinking.
His style of thinking is how he uses unnecessary excessive force to stretch mental syllables, change speed and loudness not randomly but always in the same style whenever he thinks that differs from others.
THUS A PERSON’S WAY OF THINKING THAT IS THE STYLE IN THE SUBSTANCE OF HIS THINKING IS THE VIEWS HE HOLDS AND REHASHES TO EXPLAIN SITUATIONS ARISING AND THE WAY OR PROTOCOL WITH WHICH HE REASONS OR INTEPRETS PIECES OF INFORMATION ABOUT A SITUATION TO ARRIVE AT A CONCLUSION.
HIS STYLE IN HIS WAY OF THINKING IS SIMPLY HOW HE CONSISTENTLY USES UNNECESSARY EXCESSIVE FORCE TO STRETCH SYLLABLES, CHANGE SPEED AND LOUDNESS AS HE THINKS.
ALTHOUGH EVERYBODY IN THIS WORLD THINKS WITH WAYS THAT DIFFER, IT IS POSSIBLE TO THINK WITHOUT A WAY, TO HAVE AN OPEN MIND TO APPROACH AND EXAMINE THE FACTS OF A SITUATION AS IT OCCURS, UNDERSTAND WHAT THEY INDIVIDUALLY MEAN AND WHAT THEY MEAN WHEN ADDED TOGETHER. THIS IS GENUINE SPECIFIC TO THE OCCASION THINKING OR REASONING AND LEADS TO GENUINE UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT IS HAPPENING. THIS IS A ‘WAY OF THINKING’ THAT IS SHORN OF ALL WAY OR METHOD. TRULY FREE AND UNFETTERED.
THE WISE IS NOT FETTERED TO THINKING, WHEN IT IS UNNECESSARY, HE EVEN SWITCHES OFF ALL THINKING TO JUST DIRECTLY SEE AND DIRECTLY KNOW WITHOUT NEED FOR THINKING. IF YOU ALREADY SEE AND KNOW WHAT HAPPENS WHAT IS THERE TO THINK WHAT HAPPENED? WHEN YOU THINK YOU CANNOT BE DEVOTED TO SEEING AND AS A RESULT OF NOT SEEING YOU MUST THINK MORE.
No initiative:
People complain about those who have no initiative, who must always be told what to do or they do not know what to do. Such persons are actually merely more robotic than their cousins who have some measure of initiative, an ability to assess a situation and apply the rules from similar situations they experienced in the past to ‘take the initiative’ to act without being told to.
Even these people with initiative have to be told by programs in their heads that they should go ahead and act in a certain way even if they have not been instructed to by others.
If people watch themselves carefully they may catch themselves waiting for instructions in their minds telling them what to do or say and if no instructions are forthcoming, they are paralyzed, they do not know what to say or do.
You understand but how come you did not understand?
You say you understand but how come you did not understand that when people do or say things as they are told they are merely saying or doing things mechanically as robots, what they are told to do or say are the programs and they are merely using force to carry out those programs. Here as everywhere else, people in this world are merely doing or saying things as they are told either by programs activating in their minds or what others physically command them to do.
THAT PEOPLE CAN DO OR SAY THINGS AS THEY ARE TOLD PROVES THAT THEY CAN BEHAVE ROBOTICALLY AND IF THEY CAN BEHAVE ROBOTICALLY THEN THEY CAN BEHAVE ROBOTICALLY EVERYWHERE ELSE AND SO IT IS THAT THEY MAY BE OR ARE ROBOTS IN EVERYTHING THEY SAY OR DO THAT DOES NOT MEAN THAT THIS STATE OF AFFAIRS IS NATURAL OR MANDATORY. IT IS UNNATURAL AND POSSIBLE TO EXIST AS A WOE FREE LIVE SPECIFIC TO EVERY OCCASION PERSON.
Bemused wariness:
Even at a young age children are able to ape behaviour they perceive in adults and so it is that this child is expressing with its face a mixture of bemused (faked liking) wariness (faked fearfulness) in order to be nice or please others because they think your ability to express thus reflects sociability and intelligence when it is forced, applies force on the mind that leads to tension (conflict), stress, restlessness and distraction.
You cannot be truly bemused and wary but it is always faked because bemused means you find something pleasurable whilst wariness means being fearful. How can you be bemused when you are truly fearful and so it is that this expression that is common in society is a fake because society applauds it.
EVEN IF YOU ARE GENUINELY BEMUSED AND WARY AT THE SAME TIME, IT IS STRESSFUL, EVEN TORTURE TO ACT OR EXPRESS THUS BECAUSE IT APPLIES SIGNIFICANT FORCE THAT IS TOTALLY UNNECESSARY ON YOUR MIND, THE EFFECT ON THOSE WATCHING IS TO BE SIMILARLY BEMUSED, HARMING NOT BENEFITING THEM.
THIS IS A WORLD OF ACTORS AND FAKES WHO HAVE FAKED SO LONG SO WELL THEY NOW PERCEIVE WHAT THEY STRESSFULLY FAKE AS GENUINE AND BENEFICIAL WHEN IT IS FALSE, MEANINGLESS AND HARMFUL.
(This expression is always faked but when so well practiced that it is involuntarily induced by something happening the person may be deceived to think it is spontaneous or natural or genuine bemused wariness. On other occasions when he is actively forcing it, he may realize he is faking it to please others watching. Bemused wariness and all facial expressions are all false, faked to please and impress others)
Bemusement is surprise in a liking way:
People are regularly saying they are bemused but what is this bemusement they talk about in themselves and others?
Bemusement is simply being puzzled or surprised in a pleasant or liking or attracted way. Thus bemusement when genuine is simply a stirring of your mental force to be puzzled in a pleasant or attracted way by what is happening that has nothing to do with reason, has nothing understandable or meaningful and is merely the transitory, stressful stirring of mental force that is blind and does not last.
People in this world have learnt to act bemused and are expressing bemusement far more than they are aware, and if you say they understand, do they understand the nature of this bemusement that they are expressing, often without awareness?
TO IN ADDITION EXPRESS FEARFULNESS, TO ACT BEMUSED (SUPRISED IN A LIKING WAY) AND FEARFUL IS TO GENERATE ADDITIONAL CONFLICT OR CLASH OF FORCES THAT MUST BE CONTROLLED BUT WILL END IN ULTIMATE LOSS OF CONTROL AND UNCONTROLLABLE CONFLICT OR INSANITY AND SO IT IS THAT PEOPLE WHO ACT BEMUSED IN A FEARFUL WAY ARE COURTING FUTURE INSANITY.
(Name me one person who speaks like this in this world? Even the top clerics, philosophers and medics in this world do not, cannot speak as I speak above and is what I say nonsense or is it the truth that this world neither sees nor knows?)
Seized by force:
This is the look of a man whose mind is seized by significant force. Because force is blind and blinding, how can a man whose mind is seized by force genuinely understand? And so it is that he and those whose minds are roiled by mental force, by like and dislike cannot genuinely understand.
Look at the stern force seized stare and grim expression on his face. You may say he shows determination under duress but that is using force to meet force which is mad. You use reason to meet force to circumvent force. Only reason can overcome force, force meeting force results in clashing that is to everyone’s detriment.
There is aggression which is a form of ill will on his face. There is aggression that is good or bad, it is all evil and if you think there is good and bad aggression you may be deluded and that is not the way to safety.
You mean you must galvanize yourself?
People routinely advise others that when faced with adversity or difficulty you must not give in but you galvanize yourself to resist and even prevail.
You mean to say you must use force to galvanize yourself and resist, if you did not use force you will give way or collapse?
There is no need to use force to galvanize or resist when you are faced with adversity, there is no need to oppose or confront the adversity but what is needed is to use genuine reason to understand what is the nature of the adversity confronting you and if you desire to maintain your position or proceed beyond the obstacle, to use reason to resolve the problem.
For instance if you are aware of fierce tigers or robbers lie ahead in the route you wish to take and you know there are alternative routes circumventing, there is no need to use force to confront the thieves or tigers but you use the available alternative route to bypass them.
YOU DON’T NEED TO STIR FORCE TO BRACE OR GALVANIZE YOURSELF WHEN YOU MEET AN OBSTACLE BUT YOU SUMMON GENUINE REASON AND JUST GO ABOUT RESOLVING THE IMPEDIMENT. AS A RESULT OF STIRRING FORCE TO GALVANIZE YOURSELF, YOU ARE SUBJECTING YOUR MIND AND BODY TO FORCE THAT IS UNNECESSARY THAT HARMS IT NO MATTER HOW YOU MIGHT VANQUISH YOUR DETRACTORS.
DO YOU MEAN THAT WITHOUT GALVANIZING YOURSELF YOU CANNOT ENGAGE YOUR DETRACTOR IN A REASONED DEBATE OF WHAT COURSE OF ACTION IS APPROPRIATE?
What happens when people galvanize themselves:
When people talk of galvanizing themselves they are actually talking about stirring their flagging force of going against self to defeat their rising fear so that they may persist or proceed in doing or saying something that fills them with trepidation or fear.
BECAUSE IT IS THEIR FORCE OF GOING AGAINST SELF THAT IS THE BLIND FORCE PROPELLING WHATEVER THEY SAY OR DO THAT HAS AN ACCOMPANYING UNNECESSARY FOR SHOW STYLE THAT GOES AGAINST SELF TO CREATE STRESS, RESTLESSNESS AND DISTRACTION, WHEN FACED WITH OBSTACLES, THEIR FORCE OF GOING AGAINST SELF WANES IN THE FACE OF A RISING FORCE OF SELF PRESERVATION SO THAT THEY MUST GALVANIZE THEMSELVES BY FORCIBLY RAISING THE STRENGTH OF THEIR FORCE OF GOING AGAINST SELF TO SURMOUNT THEIR FORCE OF SELF PRESERVATION IN ORDER TO PROCEED.
No need to galvanize yourself:
If what you say or do is the truth and it has no unnecessary, false stressful style aimed at pleasing and impressing others then you do not need to galvanize yourself to say or do it but you effortlessly say or do it whatever the circumstances because what you say or do is the truth shorn off any artificial ornaments and does not go against yourself in the name of pleasing or impressing others.
IT IS ONLY WHEN WHAT YOU SAY OR DO IS NOT QUITE TRUE, YOU SAY OR DO SOMETHING WITHOUT SEEING OR KNOWING IT IS TRUE, IT CONTAINS FALSE FORCEFUL STYLE (PROLONGING, CHANGING SPEED AND LOUDNESS) THAT IS AIMED AT PLEASING AND IMPRESSING OTHERS THAT IT MUST ALWAYS ENGENDER RESISTANCE AND WHEN RESISTANCE RISES ALARMINGLY THEN YOU MUST GALVANIZE YOURSELF TO SAY OR DO IT.
Plans without writing:
All robotic speech and actions are according to plans in which the person is a mere robot supplying force to carry out that plan.
Plans may be written or unwritten, does not require a written plan in which you directly see what others do and copy it without need to be told in words or written order how to do it.
There are many robotic plans that are unwritten, they are not formally defined which human robots carry out without need for any understanding or knowing why. It is a matter of just perceiving, memorizing what you perceive and then rehashing what you memorize.
IT IS IMPOSSIBLE THIS BOY UNDERSTANDS WHY HE IS SALUTING BUT IT IS SOMETHING HE SAW ADULTS DO AND MAY HAVE BEEN ENCOURAGED TO DO AND HE JUST REMEMBERED AND REHASHED FROM MEMORY WITHOUT UNDERSTANDING WHY BECAUSE THERE IS NO MEANING IN SALUTING, THERE IS NOTHING TO UNDERSTAND IN IT, IT IS JUST A SOCIAL CUSTOM THAT PEOPLE EXPECT YOU TO DO OR THEY ARE THRILLED OR THEIR MENTAL FORCES ARE STIRRED TO LIKE WHEN YOU SALUTE THEM.
LEARNING TO SALUTE IS ONE OF THE MANY ROBOTIC PLANS THAT PEOPLE MEMORIZE AND REHASH DIRECTLY WITHOUT NEED FOR A WRITTEN OR FORMAL PLAN. ‘OBEY AND NEVER QUESTION YOUR SUPERIORS’ IS ANOTHER PLAN THAT REQUIRES WRITTEN OR SPOKEN INSTRUCTIONS.
HSBC admits incompetence:
HSBC takes $4.3bn hit on US loans
Losses at Europe's biggest bank, HSBC, relating to the US housing market crisis reached $4.3bn (£2.7bn) in the third quarter.
The unprecedented turbulence in financial markets continued to present "enormous challenges", the bank added.
Comment: By saying the unprecedented turbulence in the financial markets continue to present enormous challenges the bank is admitting that it did not foresee the crisis and is grappling to make sense and safety of the crisis.
Do you think God will be surprised by this unprecedented crisis or is this crisis entirely to be expected, there have been warning signs and they were ignored by all the banks including HSBC.
HSBC IS SHIRKING RESPONSIBILITY IN BLAMING UNPRECENDENTED CONDITIONS THAT NOBODY INCLUDING IT COULD FORESEE BUT IT IS A LIE BECAUSE IT PLAYED AN IMPORTANT PART IN STOKING EXCESSES IN WHICH THE CURRENT CRISIS IS THE INEVITABLE RESULT AND RATHER THAN EXONERATING IT IS AN UNWITTING ACKNOWLEDGEMENT THAT MANAGEMENT IS INCOMPETENT THEN AND IS LIKELY SIMILARLY TO BE INCOMPETENT IN DEALING WITH THIS CRISIS THAT MAY THREATEN TO SWEEP BANKS UNDER.
Krugman: New New Deal:
Franklin Roosevelt is widely attributed to have ‘kick started’ the moribund US economy in the 1930s with the New Deal and it reflects ordinary people’s propensity for mischief that Krugman chose to phrase what he said, “New New Deal” that sounds odd but is technically true. The proper way to phrase it is: “Another New Deal?”
New New Deal is intended to be smart, to impress and be mischievous and that is karma not merit. The first ‘new’ is intended to depict something as new but the second refers to a ‘new’ deal of the past.
IF YOU WANT TO AVOID SUFFERING, LEARN TO SPEAK TRUTHFULLY UNDECEPTIVELY, WITHOUT SLYNESS OTHERWISE YOU WILL NOT ESCAPE SUFFERING.
Southern Ocean close to acid tipping point
Posted
Updated
Results show a speeding up of the process of ocean acidification by 30 years (user submitted, file photo: Jim Begley)
Australian researchers have discovered that the tipping point for ocean acidification caused by human-induced CO2 emissions is much closer than first thought.
Scientists from the University of New South Wales (UNSW) and CSIRO looked at seasonal changes in pH and the concentration of an important chemical compound, carbonate, in the Southern Ocean.
The results, published in today's Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, show that these seasonal changes will actually amplify the effects of human carbon dioxide emissions on ocean acidity, speeding up the process of ocean acidification by 30 years.
Dr Ben McNeil, senior research fellow at the UNSW's Climate Change Research Centre, says the ocean is an enormous sink for CO2, but unfortunately this comes at a cost.
"The ocean is a fantastic sponge for CO2, but as it dissolves in the ocean it reduces the pH of the ocean, so the ocean becomes more acidic," Dr McNeil said.
This acidification makes life especially hard for marine creatures such as pteropods - an important type of plankton found in the Southern Ocean - whose shells are made up largely of calcium carbonate.
Tipping point
Once the acidity of the Southern Ocean reaches a certain level, the shells of these and other calcareous marine creatures will start to dissolve.
"That's a really bad point to get to," Dr McNeil said.
"After that point, we can't go back unless we suck the CO2 out of the atmosphere."
This so-called 'tipping point' of acidification had been predicted to occur when atmospheric CO2 levels hit 550 parts per million, around the year 2060.
However, the new research shows levels of the carbonate that these creatures need to build and maintain their shells drops naturally in winter, due to natural variations in factors such as ocean temperature, currents and mixing, and pH.
Dr McNeil says this means the tipping point is likely to be reached at far lower atmospheric CO2 levels - around 450 ppm, which also happens to be the target set by the IPCC for stabilisation of CO2 emissions.
"That's the benchmark that a lot of climate scientists have said we want to reach," he said, but this concentration is forecast to be reached around 2030.
Dr McNeil says ocean acidification could lead to large-scale ecosystem changes, affecting not just plankton but other marine life including fish, whales and dolphins.
"They're at the base of the food chain ... so right now we don't really know the ramifications."
The deadly consequences of acting:
They’re all acting putting on a show maintaining their postures in exaggerated poses to be seen.
Nothing meaningful has happened that requires them to go into the poses but they are all taking part in a show that requires them to adopt such group poses as a result of which they are merely robots acting according to plans.
You and them see nothing wrong but it is called faking it with the body or lying that will lead to insanity and even another eternity of weeping and gnashing of teeth instead of heavenly bliss.
The Buddha said singing is crying and dancing is insanity. This is part of dancing and so according to the Buddha they are practicing controlled insanity that will end without fail in uncontrolled insanity.
THERE IS NO MEANING IN WHAT THEY ARE COLLECTIVELY DOING WHICH IS POSSING IN EXAGGERATED POSTURES THAT ARE STRESSFUL TO MAINTAIN BUT THEY AND THE AUDIENCE ARE INPRESSED WITH, THEIR MENTAL FORCES ARE STIRRED ATTRACTIVELY. BECAUSE IT IS MEANINGLESS THEY ARE PRACTICING CONTROLLED MADNESS.
Why gold is moribund:
After reaching a peak of US$1000, gold is now hovering around $700 and ‘experts’ are befuddled why it has failed ‘to shine’ as a safe haven thus far in a midst of a financial crisis of confidence.
Whilst there are some allusions to it, nobody has made the connection that gold may be a cornered market, hedge funds armed with the wealth of rich clients augmented by margin finance from banks may have cornered and pushed up prices way beyond reasonable but now faced with redemptions by frightened investors losing money and the likely turning off of margin finance, they are under pressure to sell which is why gold has not taken off as expected.
You may think gold is a good investment but depending on how much the price has been artificially pushed up and hidden selling pressure, even current valuations may be excessive.
THE SAME GOES WITH OIL PRICES. IT IS NOT SO MUCH FUNDAMENTALS THAT ARE DEPRESSING OIL PRICES BUT IT IS SPECULATORS HIT BY REDEMPTIONS AND REDUCED MARGIN FINANCING TAKING INTO ACCCOUNT LOOMING RECESSION WHO ARE FORCING PRICES DOWN BY PARING DOWN THEIR HOLDINGS.
Pie in the sky economics:
Recently China announced $800 billion fiscal stimulus and I could see the official putting a ‘brave’ face or telling a lie. The world and China may think it is very rich but where is the money coming from?
If China thinks it has a lot of money stashed in the US and therefore can afford to spend, then if the money there has been loaned to buy houses and are now lost, then its money is at the moment lost and to spend as if the money in the US is intact is self delusion.
Flushed (filled with pride) with the success of its pioneering bank bailout schemes that the US adopted and gaining political capital at home, British PM Brown is now beating the drum of coordinated global income tax cuts to stimulate the economy.
The governments are throwing money at the crisis bailing out banks and increasing public spending (when they failed to save beforehand) and now they want to cut everyone’s taxes. Without these tax receipts where are the governments going to find money to pay for the bailouts and public projects? Are they going to print money like toilet rolls? It sounds like supplying more alcohol once the party has run out of alcohol. You spent your way into trouble and now you want to spend your way out of trouble. Does that make sense or is this a mad world?
No comments:
Post a Comment