I Beg to Defer
11 Feb 2012 Leave a Comment
in Humanity Tags: ctwfrank, culture, future, history, humanity, humor, inspiration, Life, linguistics, News, philosophy, reviews, society, technonology, writing
I’m not supposed to write while I’m writing, but this was irresistible. Today, my five-year old daughter asked me a very interesting question after her daily communication session with me. Most people would probably laugh if they were to actually observe any one of these sessions and attempt to correct my perceived misspeak by saying; “Communication what? You’re just teaching her English!” English? Now that’s funny! What’s English? I’m not sure that I would recognize actual English if I heard it, in fact it’s hard to pinpoint exactly when we warped and twisted what used to be referred to as ”The King’s English” into the absurd jargon that we call English today. I most definitely am not teaching my daughter English, to me that would be like teaching one’s own child where to stab a person so that it kills or where it only causes trauma: it would be perverse. I’m teaching my daughter how to communicate with other people; one certainly can’t communicate with another person by using English! Everyone knows that you only use English to confuse or antagonize others but never to communicate; that’s what money is for. Do you see? You’re already paying more attention at its mere mention.
Apologies, I digress; back to the point, namely my daughter’s question, which was: “Dad; if the prefix in- means “not”, then why does the dictionary say that the word “indifference” means to not care or to consider something unimportant? That’s not what “not-difference, or not-different” means. According to the rules, indifference should mean that there is no difference in something – like when making a comparison, even though it’s easier to just say that one thing is the same as another instead of saying that it’s indifferent from another –that sounds like too much work! So what’s the word that should be used to mean that someone doesn’t care? There’s got to be a word, Dad! This doesn’t make any sense!”
A few minutes later; after the pride, amazement and wonder subsided a bit, I contemplated the question and replied;
“You’re right, honey; it doesn’t make any sense. That’s because it is the wrong word, just as you figured. The word that should appear in the dictionary in the same place where you now see “indifference” is “indeference”. The problem is that if you try to look up the word “indeference”, you won’t find it because it is a ‘forgotten word’; we simply forgot, for some reason, and replaced it with “indifference”, maybe because they sound sort of the same, who knows? In this case the formative prefix in- is added to a noun to form another noun representing the effect of a negative force on the original word. The word “deference” means ‘to show respectful courtesy” as to character or to be ‘respectfully submissive” as to a point of conversation or debate. When the prefix in- is added, the result should be “indeference”, but that word doesn’t exist in the dictionary; instead the definition of “indeference” is what appears as the definition of “indifference”; which means some else entirely. Do you understand now, sweetie?”
She looked at me with eyes that would make Puss-n-Boots envious and then she asked me:
“Buy why, Dad? Why would we do something like that?”
I sighed, and with compassion and clarity, I answered my daughter’s question:
“Because in the end, sweetie, we are nothing more than a bunch of punk-assed sissy bitches and straight-out pussies who would gladly admit that shit and shinola are the same, as long as they didn’t have to get up or do any thinking. The human race has become but a sad whimper when compared to our potential and we forget words just like we forget to care or to participate. It’s possible that humanity has forgotten so many things that no one believes that they can make a difference anymore.”
My daughter looked me straight in the eyes and lit up with awe and understanding. She jumped up and down and with jubilation and excitement shouted:
“Of course! That’s it, Dad! Now I understand! We just got the words mixed up! “Indifference” should mean ‘to not be able to make a difference’ and perhaps everyone feels that way because they forgot that feeling that way IS indifference and what they thought was indifference is actually indeference! Right, Dad?”
It was my turn to be awe-struck. I couldn’t decide if it was just the innocence of a child or flawless logic that inspired my little girl and it really didn’t matter, she blew me away. All I could do was to look at her and say: “Maybe, sweetie; it just might be exactly that.”
She served up that look again; its power is irresistible and with every ounce of strength she could muster, she made the “please” gesture with her hands and said:
“So why don’t’ you just explain that to everyone, Dad? You’re the best explainer in the whole world! Every time you explain something to me, I understand it right away! Please, Daddy, everything will be okay if you just explain this to everyone!”
So I am.
Thank you, honey, for helping me to remember what it means to be human. I love you.
ctwfrank
Change
29 Dec 2011 1 Comment
in Humanity Tags: all, blog, ctwfrank, culture, economics, education, family, Life, linguistics, miscellaneous, money, News, people, philosophy, psychology, random, reviews, society, thoughts, writing
Change [cheynj]
Source: Dictionary.com Unabridged
verb (used with object)
- to make the form, nature, content, future course, etc., of (something) different from what it is or from what it would be if left alone: to change one’s name; to change one’s opinion; to change the course of history.
- to transform or convert (usually followed by into ): The witch changed the prince into a toad.
- to substitute another or others for; exchange for something else, usually of the same kind: She changed her shoes when she got home from the office.
- to give and take reciprocally; interchange: to change places with someone.
- to transfer from one (conveyance) to another: You’ll have to change planes in Chicago.
- to give or get smaller money in exchange for: to change a five-dollar bill.
- to give or get foreign money in exchange for: to change dollars into francs.
- to remove and replace the covering or coverings of: to change a bed; to change a baby.
verb (used without object)
- to become different: Overnight the nation’s mood changed.
- to become altered or modified: Colors change if they are exposed to the sun.
- to become transformed or converted (usually followed by into ): The toad changed into a prince again.
- to pass gradually into (usually followed by to or into ): Summer changed to autumn.
- to make a change or an exchange: If you want to sit next to the window, I’ll change with you.
- to transfer between trains or other conveyances: We can take the local and change to an express at the next stop.
- to change one’s clothes: She changed into jeans.
- (of the moon) to pass from one phase to another.
- (of the voice) to become deeper in tone; come to have a lower register: The boy’s voice began to change when he was thirteen.
- the act or fact of changing; fact of being changed.
- a transformation or modification; alteration: They noticed the change in his facial expression.
- a variation or deviation: a change in the daily routine.
- the substitution of one thing for another: We finally made the change to an oil-burning furnace.
- variety or novelty: Let’s try a new restaurant for a change.
- the passing from one place, state, form, or phase to another: a change of seasons; social change.
- Jazz . harmonic progression from one tonality to another; modulation.
- the supplanting of one thing by another.
- anything that is or may be substituted for another.
- a fresh set of clothing.
- money given in exchange for an equivalent of higher denomination.
- a balance of money that is returned when the sum tendered in payment is larger than the sum due.
- coins of low denomination.
- any of the various sequences in which a peal of bells may be rung.
- Also, ‘change. British . exchange ( def. 10 ) .
- Obsolete . changefulness; caprice.
Verb phrase
- change off,
- to take turns with another, as at doing a task.
- to alternate between two tasks or between a task and a rest break.
Idioms
- change front, Military . to shift a military force in another direction.
- change hands. hand ( def. 47 ) .
- change one’s mind, to change one’s opinions or intentions.
- ring the changes,
- to perform all permutations possible in ringing a set of tuned bells, as in a bell tower of a church. T
- o vary the manner of performing an action or of discussing a subject; repeat with variations.
Origin:
1175–1225; (v.) Middle English cha ( u ) ngen < Anglo-French, Old French changer < Late Latin cambiāre, Latin cambīre to exchange; (noun) Middle English cha ( u ) nge < Anglo-French, Old French, noun derivative of the v.
Synonyms
1. transmute, transform; vary, mutate; amend, modify. Change, alter both mean to make a difference in the state or condition of a thing or to substitute another state or condition. To change is to make a material difference so that the thing is distinctly different from what it was: to change one’s opinion. To alter is to make some partial change, as in appearance, but usually to preserve the identity: to alter a dress ( to change a dress would mean to put on a different one).
3. replace, trade.
4. trade.
7. convert.
10. vary, mutate, amend.
18. transmutation, mutation, conversion, vicissitude.
21. exchange.
25, 26. replacement.
Antonyms
10. remain. 18. permanence.
change (tʃeɪndʒ)
Source: Collins World English Dictionary
— vb (sometimes foll by to or into ) (when intr, may be foll by into or out of )
- to make or become different; alter
- ( tr ) to replace with or exchange for another: to change one’s name
- to transform or convert or be transformed or converted
- to give and receive (something) in return; interchange: to change places with someone
- ( tr ) to give or receive (money) in exchange for the equivalent sum in a smaller denomination or different currency
- ( tr ) to remove or replace the coverings of: to change a baby
- to put on other clothes
- ( intr ) (of the moon) to pass from one phase to the following one
- to operate (the gear lever of a motor vehicle) in order to alter the gear ratio: to change gear
- to alight from (one bus, train, etc) and board another
- change face to rotate the telescope of a surveying instrument through 180° horizontally and vertically, taking a second sighting of the same object in order to reduce error
- informal change feet to put on different shoes, boots, etc
- change front
- military to redeploy (a force in the field) so that its main weight of weapons points in another direction
- to alter one’s attitude, opinion, etc
- change hands to pass from one owner to another
- change one’s mind to alter one’s decision or opinion
- change one’s tune to alter one’s attitude or tone of speech
-n - the act or fact of changing or being changed
- a variation, deviation, or modification
- the substitution of one thing for another; exchange
- anything that is or may be substituted for something else
- variety or novelty (esp in the phrase for a change ): I want to go to France for a change
- a different or fresh set, esp of clothes
- money given or received in return for its equivalent in a larger denomination or in a different currency
- the balance of money given or received when the amount tendered is larger than the amount due
- coins of a small denomination regarded collectively
- archaic ( often capital ) a place where merchants meet to transact business; an exchange
- the act of passing from one state or phase to another
- the transition from one phase of the moon to the next
- the order in which a peal of bells may be rung
- sport short for changeover
- slang desirable or useful information
- obsolete fickleness or caprice
- change of heart a profound change of outlook, opinion, etc
- slang get no change out of someone not to be successful in attempts to exploit or extract information from someone
- ring the changes to vary the manner or performance of an action that is often repeated
[C13: from Old French changier, from Latin cambīre to exchange, barter]
Word Origin & History
change
early 13c., from O.Fr. changier, from L.L. cambiare, from L. cambire “to exchange, barter,” of Celtic origin, from PIE base *kamb- “to bend, crook.” The financial sense of “balance returned when something is paid for” is first recorded 1620s. Phrase change of heart is from 1828.
Online Etymology Dictionary, © 2010 Douglas Harper
Slang Dictionary
change definition
n.
money. (See also and change.) : It takes a lot of change to buy a car like that.
Dictionary of American Slang and Colloquial Expressions by Richard A. Spears.Fourth Edition.
Copyright 2007. Published by McGraw Hill.
Notes:
Dictionaries are so cool; they’re keepers. Look at the slang definition!
Now, you know what it is, there’s no need to be afraid of it.
ctwfrank
?!!!!??!!!
12 Nov 2011 3 Comments
in Humanity Tags: all, ctwfrank, culture, economics, future, history, humanity, Life, money, philosophy, politics, psychology, random, society, technonology, thoughts, writing
I stopped for a moment just now – stopped everything; the math, the work, the thinking, the labor. I stopped and stood up; straight as I could. I looked around and took a deep breath – just now, and I caught a glimpse of it. It’s tiny, faint and no more than a whisper, but it’s there alright. Can you see it? Can you smell it? I have no math for this, I’ve never actually seen anything like it so I’m going by what my gut; my human gut, is telling me – and it is familiar. It’s US. I am quite sure that I just saw the very first truly collective spark of pure human hope that I’ve ever seen – who knows, maybe it’s the first one ever, but that’s what it is! Heads up, brothers and sisters; look for it, it’s there – we can do this! We can do…better.
ctwfrank
Untitleable
03 Nov 2011 1 Comment
in Humanity Tags: ctwfrank, culture, dailies, design, education, future, history, humanity, humor, inspiration, irony, Life, linguistics, local, love, media, philosophy, politics, psychology, random, recipes, religion, reviews, society, technonology, thoughts, video, videos, writing
It has always been generally considered that our modern globe-spanning Western Civilization chose Greece to be the place to herald its birth. Now, all of a sudden, it might just be that it also chose Greece to be the place where it lay down to die.
ctwfrank
THE DA VINCI VARIABLE
19 Aug 2011 2 Comments
in Humanity Tags: all, culture, economics, future, history, humor, miscellaneous, money, politics, society, technonology, thoughts
Leonardo da Vinci. We all know who he was. We all know what he was. All of the official documents of the human race: our history books, the schoolbooks from which we teach our children and all of our encyclopedic publications list him as a: painter, sculptor, architect, musician, scientist, mathematician, engineer, inventor, anatomist, geologist, cartographer, planner (cities), botanist, writer, poet and philosopher, among others and each one an official and formal citation. Many people consider him a genius and on other occasions, intellectuals have given him the title Universal Genius, however if one were forced to find a category in which to classify him when compared to others (something we can’t seem to stop doing), neither one of the aforementioned categories would be correct or even precise. Leonardo da Vinci was a Polymath; and how. This word may not be familiar to you and that is probably because it’s not use in the current lexicon; it’s not obsolete, but it is considered archaic. Polymath is defined in today’s dictionaries as follows:
pol·y·math [pol-ee-math]
noun
- a person of great learning in several fields of study;
Its use in the current vernacular has been replaced by the word “genius”. Why was this new word; genius, one defined in a matter far less precise and descriptive than polymath, chosen to replace it? This might be best explained by reading an excerpt from an observation written by some distinguished man of letters in some intellectual publication, I really don’t care to remember the person’s name, but I do remember what they wrote: “By modern standards, Leonardo da Vinci would be called, in all probability, a genius.” Hold on a minute: Standards? There is a universal standard for measuring human academic, intellectual, practical and/or professional competence? When did this happen and why hasn’t anyone been told? Naturally, whoever wrote that did what pretty much all of us do nowadays; defer the need or ability to think or exercise judgment about anything or anyone by virtue of a written endorsement of a particular measure of any human quality, particularly professional competence. According to the modern day “rule book”, the modern “standards” mentioned above actually refer to something called “professional standards” which is intended to imply, conceptually, that there is a universal and infallible criteria representing individual compliance with specific requirements and their measurement in terms of competence, as a professional. It’s a bit difficult to explain because it is equally difficult to grasp; how exactly is the competence of a person in anything learned standardized and then endorsed? Isn’t that what we call “work”? In order accomplish what this version of the word standard is suggesting, there must be an unquestionable and unequalled authority in each area of knowledge being measured and this authority must be the absolute maximum pinnacle of competence possible for the area of learning or profession being standardized. For a standardized system of universal measurement and comparison (which is not the same as a “standard”) to be valid there must exist the maximum possible value for that measurement so that everything else may be compared to that value. For there to be a valid “standard” used to measure competence in the category of knowledge called genius, then it must be established by the highest possible example of the measure, which is to say that if the “standard” in this case is the height of the “bar” that upon clearing earns one the title of genius, then that bar must be set by the most genial of all possible geniuses, past, present or future. For the standard to mean anything, it must be real and for it to be real is must be the highest possible outcome. Since what is being measured is a human quality, then the value must come from a human. So I ask; who is this Genius Rex who established the standard by which all geniuses are compared? How do we know there will never be someone more competent, because the concept of genius has nothing to do with intelligence, in fact, I would go so far as to state that the phrase “intelligent genius” is an oxymoron. When was an “intelligence” competition declared and who declared it? For the record, intelligence is not a measure of humanity; it is simply a choice, barring impairment.
Where did we get the sheer balls to lay claim to have an official “standard of competence” for anything? However it happened, it worked, because everyone bought it; hook line and sinker. No one is considered competent by the rest of the world in anything, unless that person has a piece of paper, endorsed by what I can only imagine is the authorized representative of the author of the alleged standard and whose validity and authority are unquestionable. We call this a credential. It’s the 21st century’s tribute to something us old-timers used to call “Epstein’s note”, taken from the 1970’s American television program Welcome Back Kotter, “Epstein’s Note” refers to a method used by high school teacher; Mr. Kotter’s perpetually absent student; the Puerto Rican-Jewish Juan Epstein, who, upon returning to school after what is understood to be another in a long sequence of unauthorized absences, would present Mr. Kotter with a “note from his Mom”, as a legitimate excuse. Each note would describe an inane excuse for missing class and all bore the same signature; for example: “Please excuse Juan from class last Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday. He had radiation poisoning and 2 heart attacks. Sincerely, Epstein’s Mom”. Today, in 2011, any credential that can be earned is no more a valid measure of professional competence that any of Epstein’s notes was a legitimate excuse. They are both sad, perverse jokes and yet, we still accept a credential issued by “official” sources at face value. A person producing a legitimate credential as a professional is accepted as competent, without question. In the case of genius, we can’t even agree on the mechanism of measurement, much less establish a standard. There an infinite number of “IQ tests”, each one endorsed by a different “group” with each one claiming to be the standard of measure for genius. It is of particular irony, in the case of standards for human genius that these purportedly smartest examples of what homo sapiens has to offer, didn’t know that “standards” weren’t created to measure competence or even worse, to license or regulate it. In the social process called “professionalization” which is how a “task” becomes a “profession”, one of the first milestones on this academic journey is “the development and implementation of standards of conduct and ethics” for the profession. These standards were intended to dictate the tone and manner of the interpersonal interchanges and manner in which a “professional” was expected to behave. Don’t take my word for it, look it up, do some research, you will find that this is true. When exactly did these original standards become required levels of endorsed competence of unquestioned validity? When did modern day standards and credentials make even one person actually competent? The person chooses to be competent or not, a credential does not. In fact, it’s actually a limitation. The modern system of setting professional “standards” by the use of “credentials” is explained as: a vehicle through which one can guarantee competence in a profession by providing a printed receipt that serves as unquestionable endorsement of the same.” Rather than accomplish this, they have actually limited what one human being is “allowed” to learn or do. This is not intelligent, it’s ridiculous and it’s also nothing more than an exclusive club for a select few, existing solely to protect the continuity of comfort, laziness and the imposition of the will of the few over that of the many.
Ponder this; if Leonardo da Vinci would have been born in the 1960’s and not in 1452, he would not have all of the titles that are printed right next to his name in every history book and encyclopedia. In the modern world, we would say “That’s not possible today, that could have only happened back then, you know, in more primitive times; we are civilized now – people just can’t go around being experts in 10 or 11 highly extremely complicated and important professions! No sir, you won’t see any of that today, we’re civilized now.” That’s not an actual quote, but tell me you didn’t just picture someone, maybe even someone you know, who is capable of saying exactly that. So what does all of this mean? Was Leonardo da Vinci not all of those things? If not, why do we say he was if it’s not possible? Was he lying or was someone else lying? What’s the benefit of lying about something that happened 500 years ago? It makes no sense. That’s because it is senseless. The reason that Leonardo da Vinci is given full credit for every profession that he exercised as listed in the encyclopedia and history books is because he is dead and dead people aren’t a threat; you know, if he were alive, with all of that knowledge, he’d make everyone else look like an idiot. It’s okay to have a Leonardo da Vinci 500 years ago, but not today. Think about it, it would not be illogical to consider that in today’s world, if a polymath possessing only ¼ of the knowledge and competence that Leonardo da Vinci had were discovered, they might very easily be hunted and killed; why? Because they are a threat to the status quo which is that you only have ONE career, darn it! What is considered “normal” is a sort of anonymous and androgynous mediocrity, where the blandness of everyone makes their name or even their gender insignificant. If Leonardo da Vinci would have been born in our “modern” world, there would be no Mona Lisa, anatomy wouldn’t exist, aviation would never exist, or medicine, architecture, engineering and a host of other professions that were all born from this one man’s mind; one very competent man. In today’s world, Leonardo would have never had the chance, to do any of those things, mainly because there was no possible way he could have earned all of the credentials. The fact is that Leonardo da Vinci did not, in all of his life, possess one single credential endorsing any professional quality. No Harvard diploma, no medical license, no contractor’s license, nothing; just his capabilities and his competence. In today’s world, anyone claiming to possess even a fraction of the knowledge that Leonardo da Vinci had would be called a liar, ridiculed, excluded and possibly even jailed. What a sad and mediocre world we have created and what’s worse; we have almost forgotten how to recognize human potential – unless, of course, you have the right credentials.
We have turned the word credential into a vile and worthless symbol of what we have shaped ourselves into after 12,000 years of ‘civilization’. This by no means in intended to imply that anyone possessing a professional credential isn’t competent or invalidates any individual’s choice to learn, it is intended to bring attention to another social mechanism that we have broken in this first decade of the 21st century. We wouldn’t know a real credential if it landed on our head. Would you like to see what a legitimate credential looks like? Following is the text of a letter written by Leonardo da Vinci to the Duke of Milan in 1482. Leonardo wrote the letter to introduce himself to the Duke in his search for a job:
Having, most illustrious lord, seen and considered the experiments of all those who pose as masters in the art of inventing instruments of war, and finding that their inventions differ in no way from those in common use, I am emboldened, without prejudice to anyone, to solicit an appointment of acquainting your Excellency with certain of my secrets.
- I can construct bridges which are very light and strong and very portable, with which to pursue and defeat the enemy; and others more solid, which resist fire or assault, yet are easily removed and placed in position; and I can also burn and destroy those of the enemy.
- In case of a siege I can cut off water from the trenches and make pontoons and scaling ladders and other similar contrivances.
- If by reason of the elevation or the strength of its position a place cannot be bombarded, I can demolish every fortress if its foundations have not been set on stone.
- I can also make a kind of cannon which is light and easy of transport, with which to hurl small stones like hail, and of which the smoke causes great terror to the enemy, so that they suffer heavy loss and confusion.
- I can noiselessly construct to any prescribed point subterranean passages either straight or winding, passing if necessary underneath trenches or a river.
- I can make armoured wagons carrying artillery, which shall break through the most serried ranks of the enemy, and so open a safe passage for his infantry.
- If occasion should arise, I can construct cannon and mortars and light ordnance in shape both ornamental and useful and different from those in common use.
- When it is impossible to use cannon I can supply in their stead catapults, mangonels, trabocchi, and other instruments of admirable efficiency not in general use—I short, as the occasion requires I can supply infinite means of attack and defense.
- And if the fight should take place upon the sea I can construct many engines most suitable either for attack or defense and ships which can resist the fire of the heaviest cannon, and powders or weapons.
- In time of peace, I believe that I can give you as complete satisfaction as anyone else in the construction of buildings both public and private, and in conducting water from one place to another.
I can further execute sculpture in marble, bronze or clay, also in painting I can do as much as anyone else, whoever he may be.
Moreover, I would undertake the commission of the bronze horse, which shall endue with immortal glory and eternal honour the auspicious memory of your father and of the illustrious house of Sforza.—
And if any of the aforesaid things should seem to anyone impossible or impracticable, I offer myself as ready to make trial of them in your park or in whatever place shall please your Excellency, to whom I commend myself with all possible humility.
Leonardo Da Vinci
That is a credential. . By the way, the Duke hired Leonardo and with the exception of the Bronze Horse, he did every single thing he said he could do in the letter. He worked for Lorenzo il Moro, Duke of Milan, from 1482 until 1499 and left only because the Duke was overthrown by the French during the Second Italian War.
Judgement
27 May 2011 Leave a Comment
in Humanity Tags: all, art, articles, blog, books, business, culture, dailies, design, economics, education, family, film, financial crisis, future, history, humanity, humor, inspiration, irony, Life, linguistics, local, love, media, miscellaneous, money, philosophy, politics, psychology, random, recipes, religion, reviews, society, technonology, thoughts, video, videos, writing
The only person who can judge another for what may be considered a crime is the victim or the victim’s successor in the case of murder and it is the business of only those two: the offended and the offender, to determine the truth of the crime as well as its resolution, on neutral ground and in plain view of anyone wishing bear witness. The testimony and assistance of others may be accepted, but in the end only the person who has been injured by another has the right to judge that person. When the incentives of money and/or revenge are eliminated from the equation, they fail to motivate human judgment and all that is left is the victim and what their heart tells them. Everyone is born knowing the difference between right and wrong, anything else becomes an excuse to impose the will of a few.
Declaration of a Human
12 Apr 2011 4 Comments
in Humanity Tags: all, art, articles, blog, books, business, culture, dailies, design, economics, education, family, financial crisis, future, history, humanity, humor, Life, linguistics, local, love, media, miscellaneous, money, movies, News, people, peotry, personal, philosophy, politics, psychology, random, recipes, religion, reviews, society, technonology, thoughts, writing
This Declaration was born was January 1, 2010. It is living document and like all living things, it must be born. This Declaration was born as it was being written. It doesn’t matter which one of us wrote it; what matters is that it lives by virtue of the human experience and therefore it is authored by all of us and moves with us. We are all its parents. What is being declared is done so under the only authority possible in order for it to be true; it was written by a Human Being. The common thread that binds these words to all of us is our humanity, therefore this Declaration is not written in representation of any group, organization, school of thought or any of the myriad of concepts, ideas, ideals, beliefs or other things that we created and are so fond of representing, in fact it represents no one; it is making a declaration that stands for every single one us, but in the end this document is merely a collection of words grouped together in single document. It is a human expression, not a representation of our humanity. Nothing, not a document and especially no person can represent another person; that is absurd concept. Humans can’t be represented by other humans; that violates the laws of physics, only the interests of one or some individuals can be represented by others, and we are all paying the price for being so confused about something so simple. This Declaration is written because it needs to be written, so it can be read by others. It is written so it can be born.
This Declaration has a single purpose: to communicate with clear and inarguable understanding, some basic things that are common to us all, but which we forget. It’s easy to do when the rest of us forget as well; for example, we forget to think. Perhaps it’s because we gave life and validity to many concept and ideas that we created and by doing so, we invalidate them and turn them into an aberrations, like what we did with the concept of representation. If a person can’t speak because they are mute, then another person can be their voice, if they agree as much and the speaker becomes the representation of the other’s will to speak. If a person can’t walk because they are injured or infirmed, than another person can be their legs and carry them, if they agree as much and the walker becomes the representation of the other’s will to walk. No one can be the representation of another’s humanity and their ability to think however, and even if any one of us, or all of, agrees as much, one person’s humanity cannot be the representation of another person’s humanity. That would be inhuman. A person can exist and be human if they lose the ability to speak or to walk, for example but no one can exist without thinking, even though it might appear that way today. So many of us want to believe that we actually don’t have to think if we agree to have a representative to whom we delegate our thinking. That is a severely flawed human construct which has done an almost unbearable amount of damage to all of us. Believing that we do not have to exercise our ability to think, the very thing which defines our humanity, beyond our own individual desires is to resign our humanity. Even worse; if, out of ignorance or even by imposition, we should ever believe that we can transfer our responsibility to think to any other one of us so that we are free to think only of ourselves, then we would living in our world, today, because that’s what we all think we believe. We are many because it is necessary, otherwise there would only be one of us. What each one of us does contributes to that which is the human condition, which is defined by what all of us do. We forgot this, too. These are things that we already know, somewhere inside of each one of us; each and every one of us. These words are not for one of us or a few of us or about me, it’s about us, all of us. All of us, by the way, includes the roughly 3.5 billion of us (that’s half of all of us) for which there isn’t enough of whatever is required for a person to be civilized, so we ignore them. Half of us have no home, no dreams, no jobs, no money, and no food and not even a cup of potable water, yet we ignore them. We call them the poor or the unfortunate and lie to ourselves by thinking that poverty or homelessness or fear is a disease or something. We appease the guilt by feeling sorry for them and occasionally donating some of what the rest of us value above all else; money, as a gesture of solidarity and philanthropy (because, after all, it’s money) and then we just forget about them and ignore them. It is what we do, and each one of us knows this in our hearts. We may be able to act like we don’t, but if this were true, then why can we look into our own eyes when we look into a mirror? We know this as well; not talking about it doesn’t make it go away; just ask the person looking back at you from the mirror
We are all we have. This Declaration is about us because it’s all about us, it always has been; it’s just hard to remember sometimes. What matters is that we read these words, so we may remember what we already know; that being human comes naturally; if one of us forgets something important, we help each other to remember. It’s not a matter of right or wrong, it’s simply what we DO, just like what we do (or at least what we know we should do) if the person walking in front of one of us trips and begins to fall: you help them. You reach out and steady them so they do not fall, or catch them if they are already falling or otherwise act to help them. It doesn’t require thinking, that’s just what you do. What requires thinking is convincing oneself that it’s NOT what we do. Each one of us knows this. Afterward, we may continue walking, or stop and chat, or whatever else we decide, it’s entirely up to us. Everything that we have ever done, we have done because we chose to and we made those choices because we can. We can even choose to not do what we know we should do, even though we don’t know why we know we should. Somehow, we just know. These words have the same purpose; they stand for what any one of us does when another needs help; we offer our humanity to them. If you have forgotten what it feels like, don’t worry, it will come back to you once you make the choice to remember.
We find ourselves at a point in the human experience where we must make choices. When it comes to making a choice, only the ability to choose is important. In the end, no single thing in our perception is any more or less important than any other thing, we choose the importance that we give things, because we can. We all live together in the civilized world that we chose to create and from which we are all running, before it kills us. If I, as an individual who is also part of the Human race, choose to look beyond what I have been taught and what I thought I believed; namely, -that I am the center of my own universe and as such that I am the most important thing in the universe-, then I might see something else besides myself. Most of us only see ourselves individually and in our own mind; everyone else is just something that has to be tolerated somehow. Waking up and looking beyond the tip of one’s own nose is a no simple task. It is hard to leave the comfort of one’s own importance. It is hard because in order to do so, it must be true and we know when it’s true. Some truths are very hard to accept and we may choose not to accept a truth. That does not change the truth, however. We also know this. We all find ourselves ending up in that place where “I” come first and there we stay, regardless of circumstances. I found myself there as well and thought the same thing. I was wrong. This is simply the truth. It is my truth, which also happens to be our truth, for we are all connected by our humanity. Truth is also free, it’s costs nothing and cannot be sold or bought. There is never the need to create an incentive for truth; it is its own incentive. When we forget this, what we are left with are the unpleasant illusions that are the result of the lies we have chosen to tell ourselves since we realized we could choose what we tell ourselves and others. Everyone feels the same exact way and we all know this, yet we actually believe that as long as nobody knows what “I” think, then we are safe. We believe this very much. “Nobody knows what I’m thinking. Nobody knows my intentions or what I really want. I can think only about myself and act otherwise. No one will know.” We choose to believe that as well and the very second that we do, we lie to ourselves and THAT is messy. Yet we still believe no one will know. Each one of us knows and yet we hang on to those lies because it is all we know and we have made a mess because of it. We’ve been doing this to ourselves for a long time now. So long that we seem to have forgotten that we chose this; we choose, or transferred our right to choose, everything that exists today and which is killing us, inside and out. We just forgot, so we believe that those choices are a separate and independent “reality” with life, power and authority. This is why each one of us feels alone, even though we are many; we dare not share the privacy of our true thoughts with anyone, it would be unbearable to see ourselves reflected in the eyes of another person, yet they are actually reflected in the eyes of every other person. There are almost 7 billion of us, and the vast majority feels utterly and completely alone and afraid, and those who don’t may be completely lost. This is true and we all know it is so, until we remember that it is a choice. So then, why have we done this to ourselves? Why have we chosen to accept it and to perpetuate it? In the end, it’s a choice: an individual choice. Nothing can change that; nothing can change the reality that we are a collective made up of individuals. We simply don’t know how to reconcile the two: “I” and “us”. We can choose to remember that we have a choice and then make some choices. We can choose to look at ourselves in a mirror, with no one else there, and simply choose to stop lying to ourselves. This world that we have created is not normal, it is a horrible and inhuman place and it is this way because that is what we chose to accept. It’s time to choose to give everything another try. It must be a true choice; we know when it’s true. It’s a hard choice. To see any one of us is to see us all and we are all the same. The price of one instant of the truth is hefty. Once we drop the self-deceit, what is usually there, waiting to burst forth is FEAR and ANGER. It is logical to be angry. For the vast majority of us, life is unfair, unpleasant and painful, and it’s okay to feel anger but it’s never okay to give anger free reign, we all know this as well. If we look hard, we can see that it is there, in that tiny space between what is and what will be, that we find ourselves now. We can no longer hide inside our own arrogance or guilt. Everything that we have ever done has ruptured the sack that we hid it all in and it no longer requires deep introspection or concentration to see and feel heavy burden of the sum total of all the individual lies we’ve told ourselves for thousands of years. We can’t hide all of the atrocities we’ve either committed or allowed to be committed anymore; we can see it in each others eyes every time we look at each other. We all know this. I repeat we all know this. The safety we felt by believing that “no one would know” what was in our minds and hearts is gone. We share the responsibility for what we’ve done to ourselves every time it beats us over the head. Our choices have put us in the position where we have no choice but to see and feel what those choices have made of the human condition. We all know this and to some degree we’ve known this for a long time, we’ve just never talked about it. We’ve made it very hard to talk to each other, but over time, we have begun to talk to each other as “people” and not “one of us talking to one of them”: there is no “them”, remember? We have technology now, so it is possible to communicate with many other people in many different places; at first through our televisions and now through our computers, which have also allowed for us to talk, and we have used these things to talk to one another. The very humanity we are sharing through our computer screens and cell phones have created a giant room where we can all see each other, and it turns out that we all see the same thing. All of us do, except for a small handful that can’t let go of their addictions. We’ve seen how our choices have made us suffer and how they have become an obstacle to happiness and joy. We have made ourselves suffer by choice.
We have forgotten that other than ourselves, we created everything that wasn’t already here and those things make up our civilization. These things all have one thing in common: like the concept of representation, they create the illusion of authority and the acceptance that there is a requirement to obey the results of their functions, which once again, we created. Things like wealth, and authority and sovereignty and hierarchy, and debt, and value and social position and rules and science and art and everything else that isn’t a part of the natural earth or us. We created all of these things. Most of the things that we created were created by only a few of us and it was a very long time ago, but they were just choices made with a little inspiration. Whenever a human adds a little inspiration to a choice, we create something. Things like agriculture and money, music, greed, literature, selfishness, compassion, carelessness, envy, government, religion, medicine, laughter and everything else we know. We are capable of so much. That is why we get angry when we face our own truth; that we have made bad choices and have done nothing about it, while all the time having the ability to choose something else. I was angry, very angry. I was angry at myself and at you and at everybody. I felt I had no choice but to be angry until I realized that I have a choice. We all do, and through that choice I am no longer limited to “me” living in the universe of “I”, I can see that “I” am one of “US”, and that WE are what is important. It is by virtue of all of these facts that the following first DECLARATION is made:
I forgive myself. For waiting until now to make this choice and for anything I may have done or not done, consciously or not, when I knew that I shouldn’t have. I forgive every one of us who did nothing or who did everything that contributed to the sad and inhuman state of humanity today. I choose to do so freely and truly, with full knowledge that to lie to myself brings about only destruction. If I can do this, then we all can. We can forgive ourselves and each other – for the past, and therefore create the possibility to choose a different future. In the end, it’s only a choice; our choice.
We can do better. This DECLARATION stands as a living testament to this fact.
The rest is up to us, all of us.
End of part 1.
Collective math excercise #1
23 Feb 2011 Leave a Comment
in Humanity Tags: all, culture, family, future, Life, News, philosophy, psychology, random, society, writing
There is a particular equation in some math that I’m working on that I’m kind of stuck on. It occurred to me to share it and gratefully accept any input on the topic.
The equation, if translated to a sentence, would read something like this:
Can a person resign their free will or is resigning to one’s free will a contradiction?
The contradiction would be that it is mathematically paradoxical to argue that one can will ones self to not have will. For the sake of this math, let’s introduce the variable of apathy as one affecting everyone’s will, so that we don’t have to deal with those messy paradoxes. Apathy is a fit candidate for a catalyst leading to the individual resignation of will (or whatever name we wish to give it.) Please note that there is a distinction here when it comes to apathy as a cause and apathy as a result of a process. There are many arguments forming among those who would debate and discuss the issue that apathy is the result of resigning one’s individual will, and it very well may be. It might also be a human dynamic factor which exists exclusive of the process of individual will which affects humans in the same way a virus affects another organism. They may both be correct, in fact neither may be correct; it’s like trying to debate the color of a quark; it’s pretty speculative. Nonetheless, the apathy that we have to deal with is very real, regardless of where we choose to classify in our dictionaries.
The aforementioned equation is part of a formula which is attempting to contemplate the following possibility:
Theory: Upon making the observation that huge numbers of people are, in essence “resigning” to their will by participating in a massive state of apathy which has become an epidemic of global proportions and that this observable phenomenon has created an apparent “blind” spot in human judgment with regards to the outcome of this choice, (this being the only plausible explanation for the utter and total lack of action in light of our rapidly accelerating collision with our own catastrophic redefinition), and given the fact that this catastrophic event is imminent (<10 years or much sooner): Does that make solving the conditions which created the apathetic environment that started this process an imposition? This is important because, simply put, impositions are not allowed – we are dealing with the effects of the imposition of human will on other humans every day.
When a person stops caring, are they resigning their free will? Does that resignation simply eliminate that person’s free will from the collective of free wills of humans, or can an individual’s “will” (relating it to a physical thing) be “transferred” to any other person who cares enough to assimilate the responsibility?
In other words: When does helping someone who won’t help themselves with even the basics of human existence END and forcing someone to accept help begin?
The “quick-and-dirty” solution to this math is that the demarcation point between one and the other should be whatever we collectively decide it should be. I suspect that this may also be the correct result yielded by this math, but if it is: then why haven’t we established this point yet? (That was a loaded question.)
We have avoided the collective analysis of this equation for a long time now; perhaps this would be a good time to begin? It doesn’t make much sense to survive the result of our own irresponsibility by committing another one, does it?
I kept the word count low on this post because I was worried about being too long. If anyone would like more details on the math, please just let me know; I’ll be glad to share it! (Sorry, I couldn’t resist! I have no shame!)
We can do better!
Roots; squared (or, Can someone tell me how to superscript fonts when I post?)
18 Feb 2011 Leave a Comment
in Humanity Tags: all, art, culture, economics, family, history, Life, love, News, politics, random, society, writing
There is not enough gratitude in the world that would be enough to give to one of our best and most brilliant communicators; author Alex Haley. Sometimes I contemplate the possibility that he might have known what his famous novel; Roots, would do for all of us. Sometimes, I also wonder how many people might see what this wonderful book did for humanity, or if they at least understand how a human truth is intransigent to being misunderstood by any human being. For those of us who were here at the time, the Roots phenomenon and its unique success on television should, at least statistically, raise an impacting and valid question: If Roots is the story of the history of one family and their unplanned, unwilling and at times horrific migration from Africa to the U.S. at the hands of slave traders which in turn became a tool and a mechanism through which their descendants managed to give birth to a particular, albeit obsolete human dynamic called cultural identification (aka cultural identity); then why did it affect everybody so much instead of just the descendants of the protagonists of the story? How is it that anyone and everyone, regardless of any variables, somehow related to Roots? We ALL related to Roots.
The answer is simple; we all related to Roots because it is a story of HUMAN perseverance and triumph over adversity. (Note: the triumph was over the adversity created by our own ignorance, stupidity and greed, not over OTHER people.) We can all relate to that: the story stimulated the very same feelings, be it sorrow, anger, shame or pride, in all of us. Kunta Kinte was simply one of us; a human being. Not only that, he was an example of humanity for all of us.
Thank you Alex Haley, for participating in what very well may have been one of the first instances of a particular global human dynamic which is also one of the keys to our future; the dynamic concept of us; all of us.
(Author’s note: The math says that most of us who may read this post will notice something, however there is a very good probability that a lot of us WON’T. I’m referring to the fact that this entire post was written without having to mention an “ethnic” label. Not once does “black”, “white” “African American” or any other absurd label appear in the post and yet it was perfectly understandable. Now THAT deserves a celebration!)
We can do better.
A picture really does say so very much!
09 Feb 2011 2 Comments
in Humanity Tags: all, culture, humor, irony, Life, News, society
Perhaps you may have already seen this picture as it made its way through the cyber-grape-gossip vine. If you have, it’s okay; look at it again and contemplate this in terms of where our collective heads might be these days. It’s also one of the few things in our physical universe that requires no math at all, at least from this viewpoint!
