A quick bit of reality.
10 Oct 2011 2 Comments
in OBSERVATIONS Tags: all, art, articles, blog, books, business, ctwfrank, culture, dailies, design, economics, education, family, film, financial crisis, future, history, humanity, humor, inspiration, irony, Life, linguistics, local, love, media, miscellaneous, money, News, people, peotry, personal, philosophy, politics, psychology, random, recipes, religion, reviews, society, technonology, thoughts, video, videos, writing
Foreword
The constitution prohibits the establishing of laws based on a religious belief or religious law; it is the fundamental basis of the separation of church and state. The constitution makes no such prohibition, nor virtually any other of any kind, to the private sector. That is to say that a private company can base its policies and procedures and/or operating guidelines on religious law and/or religious belief. This is guaranteed by the bill of rights (freedom of religion/freedom of speech).
The Meat and Potatoes:
The concept of “Lending Money” is one so absurd and ridiculous that it belies all logic, yet it is just one more “impossible” scenario that we make a part of our daily lives. Our civilization, as it stands in 2011 could not function at all without the lending of money, after all it is how money is created; you deposit your money in a bank, let’s say $1000.00. The bank, under the pretense that you will not withdraw that money immediately, can take a portion of it; let’s say $500.00 and lends it to someone else as if it were theirs and charges them interest on it. By accepting the loan from the bank (of your money) the beneficiary of the loan now has $500.00 dollars of your money that they bank lent them, but you also have the same $500.00 in your account; you’re just not using it right now. By doing this, the bank created $500.00 dollars, or at least that’s what we believe. In this post, I will not write any math intended to demonstrate how or why money can’t be borrowed or lent, because even though it can’t; we do it every day. In this post, I’ll stick to our present reality – to the last detail.
The lending of money is based on an analysis of credit risk. The function of credit risk analysis is to establish a person or entity’s creditworthiness. Creditworthiness is established by companies like FICO who assign a score in relation to a person’s creditworthiness. In order to determine this score, FICO’s slated objective is to predict the likelihood that a consumer will go 90 days past due or worse in the subsequent 24 months after the score has been calculated. Barring the fact that it is not possible to predict the future, the commercialization of predicting the future is officially classified as fortune-telling. Fortune telling is recognized in many states as a legitimate business as evidenced by the ability to obtain an occupational or business tax license to operate a fortune telling establishment (with a disclaimer that it is for entertainment purposes only). The reason that fortune-telling is classified as a legitimate business category is that fortune-telling is considered an aspect of witchcraft and witchcraft is officially recognized as a RELIGION in the U.S.A. and is therefore protected by the constitution.
In conclusion, even though the lives of every person in the country and most of the world, even governments are determined by their creditworthiness, there is no law regulating creditworthiness, credit scoring or credit rating, if there were, the law would be invalid because it would be based on a religious premise (witchcraft). At the same time, determining a person or company’s creditworthiness is technically an attempt to predict the future, which technically; is an act of witchcraft. When this is applied to the general public, we are able to glimpse our reality: Every person who has a loan, mortgage or credit card or in any way has borrowed money has (whether they know it or now) technically practiced witchcraft. There, that should light a fire or two under someone’s butt; they can’t argue the facts, however. Banks lend money by trying to predict the future of a person’s creditworthiness. The lending of money is the principal financial mechanism of the world’s economy; it is also the active practice of witchcraft, in reality.
It doesn’t get much more real than this.
We can do better.
The solution to the global economic crisis.
10 Oct 2011 2 Comments
in OBSERVATIONS Tags: all, art, articles, blog, books, business, ctwfrank, culture, dailies, design, economics, education, film, financial crisis, future, inspiration, Life, local, love, media, miscellaneous, money, movies, News, people, personal, philosophy, politics, random, reviews, society, technonology, thoughts, video, writing
I don’t understand what all of the fuss is about. The entire world feels like it’s on the verge of a mass nervous breakdown over this “global economic crisis”. So severe is this crisis that those few who actually know how bad it is will never divulge as much – and I am not one of those few; which may result my being asked how I can quantify “it” in any way. The answer to all of these questions is actually very simple: There is no financial “crisis” or a global “recession” or anything even remotely resembling the significant “slowing down” of the planet’s economy. According to the very authorities who define everything financial or economic; such as the IMF, the U.S. Federal Reserve, the World Bank and the rest of the endless list of “entities in charge” of everything related to monney; the present financial position of the human race stands as follows, using the basic, standardized, universal and official format called A BALANCE SHEET (expressed in US Dollars “US$”, as required, given that the official reserve currency of the world is the U.S. Dollar, as per the Breton-Woods Agreement, which is still being honored by recognizing gold as the official currency of the world):
Balance sheet for Homo-Sapiens as of October 10, 2011
Fiscal year-end: December 31, 2011
Total Assets: US$32 Trillion
Total Liabilities: US$84 Trillion
___________________________________
Total Assets and
Liabilities: -US$52 Trillion
(The figures may not be exact, but they are close enough to be verifiable by any person through any number of official sources.)
As can be seen by our balance sheet, we have no economic crisis or recession; whenever ones’ liabilities are greater than one’s assets, especially to the degree seen in our collective balance sheet, it is called INSOLVENCY. It’s in the dictionary, you can look it up. It’s actually pretty clear; I don’t know how every “expert” in the world missed it. On an individual basis, if any one person should become insolvent, the pestilence that is rained upon them is truly harsh, to the point where they must file for bankruptcy, after all; isn’t not being able to pay one’s bills one of the most despicable and shameful of all social positions? This is why it’s called “insolvency” – without a solution. These days, most people are forced to deal with coercive threats and more if they are 3 days in paying a credit card statement and yet the entire human race is clearly and indisputably insolvent, and no one noticed? I don’t know, but doesn’t that seem a little odd? That’s beside the point, however; I don’t want to lose my place, where were we? Oh yes, the inhabitants of Planet Earth are summarily and collectively insolvent; a fact which needs no further supporting evidence. As such, what is required is that bankruptcy be filed, humanity’s existing assets and cash flow would probably be placed in receivership and eventually the court will discharge the debt by virtue of liquidation of assets, or something of the sort, right? Those are the RULES; right? That’s what any of us would be required to do individually, RIGHT? If it applies to any person individually, then it must also apply to all of us collectively, given the same circumstances, RIGHT???
Here are the problems with this situation:
- Which court has jurisdiction over the entire human race?
- Assuming an answer for #1, to which address should all legal paperwork be sent?
- Who (and this is most important) speaks for all of us? ALL of us; because it is all of us together who are bankrupt and insolvent. Those few who may still think they “have a few bucks” can’t weasel their way out of being human, so it’s ALL of us, just look at the numbers. Who could, or can, speak for all of us, should this impossible hearing ever take place? That’s simple: All of us did not make, or even participate in the decisions as to the handling our global economy that resulted in insolvency. It was only some of us who did so. The fact that they didn’t get permission from all of us is irrelevant at this point; we believe the figures as written, therefore we are insolvent. It would seem logical that it should be those same few who put all of us in this position who should stand up for the rest of us in this case – they did when they screwed up our books. Wouldn’t you say?
Okay, I think that’s enough. None of these things are actually going to happen. All of us don’t even know who those few who put us all in this position are, or were. It’s ridiculous to consider that the “human race” could file for bankruptcy, yet this doesn’t change the fact that we are bankrupt and insolvent. We can’t play by some of the rules and ignore the rest when it’s convenient. If humanity can’t file bankruptcy, then it can’t be insolvent either; why? Because we INVENTED both of those concepts, yet we believe them to be real and true individual “things” with their own will and presence.
What is truly comical to the point of being Machiavellian is how we have known this all along. Of course we have, just look in the dictionary. Look up the word “insolvent”. The entire definition deals with money and bankruptcy. From a linguistic point of view, however, the word insolvent is composed of two component morphemes; the prefix in-, which means NOT, and the word solvent, which of course, means everything that’s listed under the word insolvency, except for that one little detail that jumps out at you if you actually look up the word solvent: It also means “having the power to solve”. Of course, that makes sense, doesn’t it? Then why doesn’t the definition for insolvent include “The inability to solve?” Maybe because when it comes to solving this mess, we are unable to. Shit, we can’t even solve the right definition. The entire financial crisis, wealth, value, currency, money and everything else isn’t even real, we just think it is which makes it real to all of us. In the end, what this all means is that we are actually trying to run an insolvent civilization on a bankrupt planet and that somehow a solution will be found for making something out of nothing? Look at it this way; each day that we continue to live believing this enormous pile of shit that came out of us is like driving a car with 4 flat tires; fast and a long way. You know what happens eventually, right?
Okay, just don’t say I didn’t speak up.
We can do better.
Can you Imagine?
04 Oct 2011 Leave a Comment
in Money Tags: all, art, articles, blog, books, business, ctwfrank, culture, dailies, design, economics, education, family, film, financial crisis, future, history, humanity, humor, inspiration, irony, Life, linguistics, local, love, media, miscellaneous, money, movies, News, people, peotry, personal, philosophy, politics, psychology, random, recipes, religion, reviews, society, technonology, thoughts, video, videos, writing
If all the world’s women suddenly declared that they would only have sex with men that have six testicles in their one scrotum, and everyone believed it; no one would have any more sex and the human race would disappear within a generation.
If the last step of purchasing a new car were to precisely recite the smell of the color blue, as dictated by an Ancient Eskimo Chief to his son, who died without keeping a record of the description, and everyone believed it; no new cars would be sold.
If the world’s financial authorities declared that the sum total value of all money, gold, silver and other wealth possessed by all of the people on the planet totaled $34 Trillion and that the total amount of debt owed by all of the people on the planet was valued at $84 trillion, and everyone believed it, then money and wealth would be meaningless and worthless, no one would ever actually be able to own anything and everything in life would be measured by what you owe instead of what you are.
Oh shit, wait a minute. That last one’s an actual fact.
Excuse me….again
26 Sep 2011 1 Comment
in OBSERVATIONS Tags: all, art, articles, blog, books, business, ctwfrank, culture, dailies, design, economics, education, family, film, financial crisis, future, history, humanity, humor, inspiration, irony, Life, linguistics, local, love, media, miscellaneous, money, movies, News, people, peotry, personal, philosophy, politics, psychology, random, recipes, religion, reviews, society, technonology, thoughts, video, videos, writing
Just for the sake of argument, let’s just say that the $84 trillion debt figure is real (LOL). Let’s also say that I wanted to settle that debt, the whole thing, for everyone, and that I had the money with which to do it. This being the case; who would I make the check out to?
It’s just a bombastic question, but a curious one to contemplate.
Excuse me, but…
24 Sep 2011 4 Comments
in OBSERVATIONS Tags: all, art, articles, blog, books, ctwfrank, dailies, economics, education, financial crisis, future, history, humanity, humor, inspiration, irony, Life, linguistics, media, miscellaneous, money, movies, News, people, peotry, personal, philosophy, politics, psychology, random, recipes, religion, reviews, society, technonology, thoughts, video, videos, writing
Here’s a simple question with an impossible answer: The IMF, The Federal Reserve and every official entity in the world agree that the total amount of debt that exists in the world is approximately $84 Trillion. By the same token, they also establish that the total amount of wealth in the world is approximately $34 Trillion. Regardless of the exact precision on the numbers; how is it possible that we can owe more than what there actually is?
Or is someone just messing with our heads?
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.
Just for the record…
16 Aug 2011 Leave a Comment
in OBSERVATIONS Tags: all, art, articles, blog, books, business, culture, dailies, economics, education, family, financial crisis, future, history, humanity, humor, inspiration, irony, Life, money, movies, News, people, peotry, personal, philosophy, politics, psychology, random, recipes, reviews, society, thoughts, video, videos, writing
Intelligence is a choice, not a super-power.
WORLD WORDPLAY
29 Jul 2011 Leave a Comment
in OBSERVATIONS Tags: all, art, articles, blog, books, business, culture, dailies, design, economics, education, family, film, 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, video, videos, writing
cre·den·tial
[kri-den-shuhl]
–noun
- Usually, credentials. Evidence of authority, status, rights, entitlement to privileges, or the like, usually in written form: Only those with the proper credentials are admitted.
- anything that provides the basis for confidence, belief, credit, etc.
The only thing that any credential can give true evidence of is that a financial transaction occurred.
MORE WORDPLAY?
12 Jun 2011 1 Comment
in Money Tags: all, art, articles, blog, books, business, ctwfrank, culture, dailies, design, economics, education, family, film, financial crisis, future, history, humanity, humor, inspiration, irony, Life, linguistics, local, love, media, miscellaneous, money, movies, News, people, peotry, personal, philosophy, politics, psychology, random, recipes, religion, reviews, society, technonology, thoughts, video, videos, writing
The manipulation and alteration of words and language over long periods of time is a subject that I have written about on several occasions and will do so with more frequency as it becomes more and more of a factor affecting the road ahead of us. This deceitful control mechanism has been used almost continuously since we invented language; it has been an extremely convenient tool in the hands of the few and their ability to maintain control of the reins of humanity up until now. In the roughly 12,000 years since the Neolithic revolution sparked life and gave birth to the dynamic human mechanism called civilization, those few who, for whatever reason, found themselves in the position to observe its birth and development, understood what was most important to understand at that time: first, that a human civilization is not a human quality but a dynamic product of the actions of humanity and that it has only one purpose and objective: to grow, in spite of the fact that nothing can grow perpetually, period; at least nothing that we know of and second; that what civilization feeds on in order to grow, is the dynamic human energy that is the result of everything that everyone does. It does not discriminate as to the nature or origin of the human dynamic energy on which it feeds. It matters not to the dynamic of civilization if the energy that it consumes in ever increasing quantities is the result of war or if it the result of a highly productive collaboration; as long as it is energy. In the understanding of these two key aspects of civilization there was a great discovery to be made. We noticed that there were no rules as to how human activity and its resulting energy were to be structured or supervised. We could literally do anything that we could think of which would result in human activity. This little detail has always been our Achilles’ heel; we have not had any success at administering our own autonomy without succumbing to the temptation of imposing our will over others (the imposition of will is what creates the illusion of power). At the same time, it is always been that any organization or structure given to the activities of humans within a civilization have occurred by the imposition of the will or a “few” who attempt to coordinate their activities with great attention to detail to keep the rest of us in line with their agenda. These impositions and the will they represent became the rules that we structured to guide all of our actions; in order to simply keep up busy. This keeps civilization fed and full and allows for the few to do whatever they want and to use the rest of us to as tools to this end, so long as humans were active. Some of these rules were imposed in a sudden and blunt manner which required some dramatic methods to achieve (since humans don’t deal with change effectively). The incorporation of religion into the fabric of human civilization was such an imposition of will; once the concept of religion evolved to the point where it became an effective tool for control, it was imposed with the subtlety of a hurricane during an earthquake. Other rules/impositions were structured with more careful planning and contain an unusual component for a human mechanism; time. These rules are very proactive and well thought out; in particular, the manipulation of language. The results of these manipulations can not be felt for many years sometimes, which in some ways is almost contradictory to the modern pace of everything which is based on doing everything immediately. I can not pinpoint when or how or who came up with the strategy of manipulating language over time to allow for control of future generations, it may not be possible given the lack of information available to trace related events backwards in time, but it doesn’t matter; we can clearly see the manipulations if we simply look for them, no one made any attempts to disguise these subtle changes in the meaning of words and nuances in inflection and tone which changed the entire understanding of things over time, nobody needed to, we weren’t looking for them. One does not look for what one does not know is there. It took what we’re going through now to create the opportunity to ask the question and once we did, it all became immediately transparent. I hope we can all learn the lessons that can be learned by observing, with such clarity, what we have been capable of doing to ourselves, and in fact, what we have done.
One of the most impacting of these manipulations has been the inclusion and evolution of the words value and worth and the concepts that they represent.
The word and the concept of worth existed well before the word and the concept of value even though their extremely close and intimate linguistic relationship today would make it hard to believe. In fact, the two words, at the point where they became words after going through all of morphological linguistic processes that words go through in order to become words, were born from two conceptually different linguistic origins. Worth the word was born to the family of human judgment lexicons. It stems from the concept morpheme worthy and essentially means worthy of; good or important enough to merit being considered useful or important or an excellence commanding esteem, be it to the world, to a group of people in particular or even just to one person. This is the root meaning of the word “worth” at its point of origin. Some examples of its use are:
“Anagrad is a person who is fair in judgment and compassionate in action; he is worth knowing.”
“Your advice and counsel seem reasonable and useful, it is advice worth taking.”
“The place that lies beyond the trees that lie beyond field that lies beyond the place where we bury our dead that lies beyond the river that lies beyond our planted fields and orchards that lie beyond our homes is far away and a long walk, but its beauty is worth the trip.”
These are all examples of the language lexicon which expresses judgment calls. In all cases, whatever it is that has been determined of worth is of importance to one or more people, which is a fundamental variable in the calculations of value. It would be appropriate today to say that those things in the examples that were considered of worth was because they had value, since excellence of character, usefulness or importance; in fact the word “values” when used to define human behavior are those considered useful or important by a group of people, regardless of what it is that has worth or is valuable. It is important to note that everything related to both of these words existed purely in the realm of human judgment. Over time, the definition of worth began to include a more proprietary nature, indicative of that which left something or produced something important to one or more people, as in: “That ox was worth the 3 slaves and my youngest virgin daughter, it has plowed thrice the area that I could have plowed alone.” This shift in the emphasis of worth began a shift towards a relationship with wealth and money and over time, the dominating definitions of the words were related to their relationship with money. Even though the original definitions describing judgment-based criteria remained in the dictionary, the expansion of those definitions, (which were all related to money) dominated the concept. See the definition of worth here. Worth suddenly was defined as having a value of, or equal in value to, as in money: This vase is worth 12 dollars. In this way, the word worth “changed” from being a noun to a preposition, if fact, in today’s dictionary it is listed as both, with preposition in the key position. Even when referring to its original function as a noun, we can see that the descriptions of things commanding esteem or considered useful or important now included the simple definition: value, as in money. Wow, pretty straightforward, but completely different from its roots, in other words; contradictory.
The word value however, was born a noun. See the definition of value here. Here we can see that right off the bat, the #1 definition of value is “the relative worth, merit or importance; the value of a queen in chess. Here I would argue that this definition describes a preposition, it is still a judgment call, but it had to be put in there I guess to preserve the “integrity” of continuity, if nothing else. This was quickly cleared up in all the rest of the definitions, where value is defined as monetary or material worth, as in commercial trade and the worth of something in terms of the amount of other things for which it can be exchanged or in terms of some medium of exchange. Perhaps this last definition was a last ditch and desperate attempt to scream out “Hey! It’s not only money that has value; it can be other stuff too.” perhaps in the hopes of disguising the actual and total link between value and money. Maybe it was assumed that we don’t understand that the only medium of exchange in the world is money, or at least the only one worth exchanging. Do you see how they become intertwined in a knot of confusion, misdirection and deceit? Perhaps this slipped by a lot of people, after all it was designed to and we are not taught to question the dictionary, but after covering the other mandatory uses of the word “value” (like in mathematics, for example), we come to the 16th definition of the word, in which it becomes a verb, used with object and is defined as “to calculate or reckon the monetary value of; give a specified material or financial value to…” It doesn’t get much more direct that than that. Value is how we “reckon” the monetary value of….. Those things that have worth, obviously. We don’t walk into a store and say: “Excuse me, what’s the value of that painting?” We say “Excuse me, what is that painting worth?” In practice, if not in fact, they have becomes synonyms. The worth of a thing is defined by its monetary value. They essentially mean the same thing, so why keep both words? It’s simple, because worth still maintains an element of human judgment as part of its function, and that is what makes it possible for something to be worth more than what its value may be. Value is a specific measurement in terms of money; so is worth, but the latter kept a partial definition as a function of judgment, which may alter the value of a thing if the individual or group considers it important enough. This is what has allowed for a smooth-talking salesman to show someone a bottle of flax seed oil (for example), a consumable product with a value of roughly $1.00 per pint, then pick and choose the right words that will raise the importance of that oil to the potential buyer and suddenly, the same pint of oil is worth $20.00 to that person at that moment, as a result of a judgment call based on the explanation (story) they were hearing. This is why we kept the word worth in modern day language, it justifies the excuse that the value of a thing may be a fixed number in the Universe, but the monetary expression of that value is whatever a person considers it to be worth. This results in a direct and flagrant contradiction of definitions in the dictionary, and it’s also the excuse for the con, the play on words that allows for astuteness to be considered more important a quality than intelligence and capriciousness to win out over logic: because in the end, the worth of anything is a result of individual judgment. How extremely convenient a variable to use in altering the calculation of value used in economics and commerce; and how devastating.
Just ask yourself this and consider the significance to today’s world:
It used to be that the worth of a thing was determined by what it produced and held, since it has always been a law of human dynamics that the “worth” of a nation or even a person, was measured by what they produced and held (as in owned). That worth was then translated into its equivalent value in money and that resulted in its “net worth”; it was also what allowed for human beings became ‘for sale’ without technically being slaves. In short, the value of what someone or something was worth was measured by its ability to produce things of value and hold things of value, thus increasing their financial worth, which has become the only measure of value important to us.
Today, in 2011, a person, a company or even a country is only worth as much as its ability to pay the value of what it OWES, given that the aberration of the value of things caused by the use of individual judgment to allow for things to be worth more than their value resulted in an enormous fracture in the calculations of value. People began to exchange more money for something they desired than the value of that thing, as established by our own reckoning, this difference could not be financially reconciled because it was born of judgment and not accounting and therefore, over time, we were committing to exchange more than what we had (our net worth ) for virtually everything, allowing for the birth of CREDIT AND DEBT. Today, even those few people and entities that still produce things of value today do not have their worth enhanced by the value of the things they produce. If whatever a person or company or country produces isn’t immediately converted into the money representing its value – in the form of assets, which can be attached, taken or legally foreclosed upon, then they are considered “worthless”. Production of goods and services has become pointless, only the converted monetary value of a thing in the form of an asset is worth anything. A person can produce a million dollars worth of goods and services every day, but unless they convert that production into money and the money into assets, (which can be taken, or litigated or foreclosed upon) then that person is considered worthless by virtue of “insolvency”.
In conclusion, what began as considering anything that was seen as useful to have worth; today the only thing that is useful is money, which also happens to be the only thing we consider to have value. The only thing worth having is money, since that determines the value of what you can pay towards your DEBT, and everyone knows that a person isn’t worth anything until they owe money and thus establish credit, which creates value by allowing us to BUY money at an enormous markup, which in turns diminishes our worth and in the end, no matter what anyone does, we all end up owing everything that we may be worth to someone else.
There you have it: Value and worth; an incredibly detailed mind-fuck that, over time, made people worthless while maintaining money valuable. What an amazingly brilliant construct. We are capable of so much. If only we could figure out how to use that capacity collaboratively to make us ALL happy, instead of allowing for a few to feel the rush of imagined power at the expense of the rest of the suffering of the rest of humanity.
We can do better.
MATH HUMOR?
31 May 2011 Leave a Comment
in OBSERVATIONS 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, movies, News, people, peotry, personal, philosophy, psychology, random, recipes, religion, reviews, society, technonology, thoughts, writing
