Terminclature….the new thought technology
Terminclature….the new thought technology
I created this term to describe a behavior I noticed that nobody else seems to have made reference to. I eavesdrop on conversations and I have noticed this in my own and it is really annoying. I believe that conversation should be solution oriented, you recognize the problem, solve it, and get on with it. If you can’t solve the problem and you can’t learn anything new about it you stop talking about it. You don’t bring it up again unless there is no information, things have gotten worse, or their is a possible new solution or experiment that can be performed.
But this is not how people talk, there narrative is whiny, it clings to the problem it circles around it like a turd that refuses to flush. It wallows in emotional morbidity, mourning the existence of the problem. Revolving around the problem is not the solution, and you will never arrive at the solution through that verbal and mental behavior. Srsly, it makes me want to start slapping people with a shovel.
“Excuse me young man. Do you have those delicious gluten free, vegan, fair traded, organic, non-gmo chips?”
“No mam, they didn’t come in today, I think they are having problems with distribution.”
“Are you sure? I came all the way to get those. They are in a yellow bag. They are usually right here. Would they be in the back? They are so yummy! It is so sad that they aren’t here. The other store didn’t have them either. … little yellow bag….crunch…nummers..”
*It became necessary as we were recording the philosophy of Joxua Luxor/Joxua MourningStar/Shivah Solomon to define his terms as we found that he re-appropriates, redefines and creates his own thought technology in the form of vocabulary which is consistent with natural linguistic processes common in sophisticated philosophy and necessary to convey understanding.
I created this image to demonstrate my theory on how the female brain is in relationship with the male brain and emergent properties in peoples normative judgments. Women presuppose their own moral authority to judge the male mind. While the man defends the woman and child from the world, she defends herself and the child from the man. Women presuppose their moral authority and their right to judge the male mind and correct at will the masculine narrative and perspective. While the male stares into nature and contemplates the world, the woman scrutinizes the man and judges him, concealing her narrative from him, but mistrusting him.
This happens because of neural myelination from nesting rituals that was passed on due to cellular memory. Evolutionary psychology shows us that the man creates a surplus, a nest, to attract the female, and she feels that she and her children will be well taken care of. The man’s mind becomes a room. The woman enters the room and moves objects around to suit herself, to make herself comfortable.
The male mind relaxes into chatter, noise, because this has positive survival data for her.
it communicates to her that she is surviving well because people are happy, the babies are breathing and their are living bodies in the house.
Men on the other hand relax into silence. This has positive survival data for them because they know that nobody is attacking from the outside, and nobody is dying inside. So he is doing a good job. But because of the way in which the male and female brains relax the woman can coerce and irritate the male mind by nagging and whining bickering and complaining. Woman use guilt and shame to manipulate the male brain, moral authority. Women use an invasive narrative. Women even pitch their voices to be more irritating to the male brain as a subtle form of abuse. This hadn’t occurred to me until I read Mind of Mnemonist, and he spoke of how because of his synesthesia, when he was remembering something to himself, if he heard a loud or irritating noise it made a blur in his memory. I experienced something similar, I also have synesthesia. When I was younger I developed a psycho-somatic panic reaction to the sound of Shelley Long’s voice on Cheers. Men speak as little as possible and women think outside their own heads.
If you examine the diagram above you will realize that their is a flow of negative emotional data that we judge as correct and appropriate. The baby complains to the mother and the mother to the father, but we don’t like negative data moving in the other direction, the mother yelling at the baby or the father yelling at the mother.
The existence of the baby reifies the authority of the mother. Allowing her to block the communication from the father to the child. To corrupt the message. To protect the child’s diseases mental and emotional. The mother doesn’t just protect the child she also protects it’s delusions and fantasies. From the perspective of the female Moral authority is the highest and only authority, her own authority. It flies in the face of reason. That what you must do in order to survive. Women argue for mercy and charity, they protect the weak and the cute and the destitute and everyone that shows them a harmless face and tells them what they want to hear. Women protect and expand feminine authority.
Men do not feel that their value is increased by being men, but women do. Men will not defend another man because he is a man, but women will. Men will defend another woman against a man because they know there will be more eligible pussy available for themselves.
Women also take advantage of their position, being closer to the center of the herd to manipulate and influence the reputation of their man if they can’t control him. They use their relationships to spy on him, to deny him entrance to the herd if they are not pleased with him. How many times have you had your girl ruin all of your friendships when you broke up with her? Women consider this their prerogative.
Women argue for quarter, you have to be pleasant with them and then they are as aggressive and ruthless with their men. Remember this, women are submissive with the herd and aggressive with their men. From their perspective the herd is more important than the man, women are natural social climbers. Remember to that people make judgments in a predictable manner. The same way that herding animals choose who gets to die first in the presence of a threat.
The gomer men get to stay at home while the manly men go off to war….
We will never solve racism in this country moving in the direction we are moving in. Once you get victim status everybody agrees that anybody that says anything unpleasant to you, even if it is true is a bad person. We let one group beat up on another group as payback. I remember when I was a kid some black leader said something very important, I wish I could remember his name but more importantly I remember his words.
“there is no such thing as reverse discrimination, it is just regular old prejudice.”
What I am about to say is a logical fallacy that I believe I am the first person to point out. There is the general, the specific, and the personal. If something happens to me it is personal. If something happens to my friend it is specific, and if something happens in general that is the general rule. When people make judgments, when they talk, when they behave strategically to make the world a better place they forget this one simple rule. I am not white people, I did not take your land, I do not have millions of dollars from my plantation, I didn’t own slaves, I didn’t prevent women from getting the vote, I didn’t kill off the native Americans, and I refuse to be punished for it or apologize for being a strong white man.
Here is another interesting question, based on the same logic, if I can be blamed for the crimes of my ancestors and my sex, how come I never get praised for things that white people and men have done that are good? Thank you for inventing science! Thank you for inventing civil rights! Thank you for civilization and chivalry! Thank you for television and the internet! How come that never happens?
Conflationary thinking is prejudice. Thinking you can make the world a better place by singling out a person based on color or sex and attack them, blame them, scapegoat them and that will right some wrong you perceive is stupid and if you think that you are an idiot and too stupid to detect your own bullshit. You don’t change the way you treat your friends or acquaintances because of some event that has nothing to do with either of you.
The way that you change the general rule for the positive is you succeed in your relationships and you return good for good and you don’t let things going on in the world influence the way you are in relationship with your friends. The only thing that matters is what I do to you, how I treat you. You don’t know why I did what I did to someone else or why I said what I said to someone else, you only know how I treat you. What has transpired between us.
It has become normal for people to apologize for their race or for their sex with their behavior. But you are feeding into a logical fallacy. You are participating with the validity of stupidity from the mind of a moron. We are enforcing this pleasantness of speech so that we can’t talk about the real issues. One groups opinion and experiences are wrong because it comes from them, they are wrong for having it and they aren’t allowed to voice it. As long as we can’t speak freely on the subject there will be no enduring solution. Cornel West speaks about parr hesia, speaking your truth boldly, prophetically.
The solution is reason, a system that is prejudiced towards reason and knows how to recognize it. Stop rewarding prejudice, stupidity, butthurt, entitlements, people that feel like victims (histrionic personalities) and start rewarding people for being reasonable and correct.
This is my personal philosophic calculus, so please do not plagiarize me. If you are going to quote me give me credit. It is hard enough in this psychopathic, social climby world to get any recognition.
It is important to understand that two different people can be in relationship differently with the same state. One person wants to experience it again, the other is avoiding it, still another hasn’t experienced it and they either desire it or want to avoid it.
You communicate whatever state you are in. If you feel thwarted you communicate thwartedness. You want to share the state you are in. You want to thwart others. Cognitive psychology has linked the feeling of anger to feeling thwarted.
Right now we are communicating through a shared states. We were both schooled in the english language and the letter “A” means the same to me as it does to you more or less. The word “language” means the same to you as it does to me, more or less.
The problem with the “general will” of Jean Jacques Rousseau is the problem of being highly and equally educated. For example if you had to serve two years in the military after high school as they do in Israel and Northern Europe, you would make decisions differently and that would be a state that you share with others that had the same experience of having to take PERSONAL responsibility for the defense of the nation. So that feeling when everyone knows what is the right thing to do is possible, it is just not an experience we as americans have because of our specialization and our not being highly and equally educated we cannot unleash the “highest common good”.
Physical proximity also might be a shared state in so far as you look from the same vantage point or you experienced the same event. But the problem that we run into is that life has experiential data, which is to say that we tacitly interpret and judge reality in our experiencing of it.
There is also something I realized with psychopaths in that they can communicate a state. In order to do this you have to know how something will be interpreted so it deals in a way with hermeneutics. Interestingly though, psychopaths don’t have to be particularly smart to do this. They can see someone use a behavior and adopt that behavior. Human beings are acquisitively mimetic. I have heard people copy arguments that they personally did not understand because it sounded good and winsome. They copy winning behavior. This is known as strategic behavior.
I studied trolls for years when I was creating my theories on psychology. When I realized that my theories were descriptive and predictive I started using them prescriptively to manipulate the trolls I was trolling. I psychologically destroyed them. I trolled entire groups of trolls off the internet. I realized that I could communicate to them I was in a state that I wasn’t in and as I got better I could communicate to them that I was a person that I am not.
“All narrative is doxography.” ~Joxua
That means that all narrative is point of view. So I would say things that appeared to be coming from a person that I was not. I would be in character, so to speak.
I will not engage in strategic behavior to manipulate a desired outcome. I will speak plainly and my words will reflect my accurate thoughts, emotions and actions. I will speak my truth boldly “Parr Hesia” I will remember that there are 3 hidden subjects, my experience of reality, your experience of reality and reality itself. I will not judge tacitly from analogy thinking that I must contend over experiences of reality, I do not choose what is good for others, they do no choose what is good for me. My resources do my will as long as they do not affect the resources of others. Combined resources do combined will, but at the same time remain the property of the persons that earned them.
I will not be tyrannical, arbitrary, or inconsistent. I understand that all valid philosophies pose a meritocracy of some sort so that the individuals can move around freely. I understand that I must remain consistently rational in order to be considered rational. That I must know myself and represent myself accurately. Even when the lights are off and no one is watching I still remain loyal to my own philosophy for myself which I will not conceal from others for the sake of personal gain. I will be known as I am and I will know others accurately as they are. We are equal under reason.
I have taken this burden on myself to make the world a better place, one that I want to live in. I own all wisdom by having the ability to understand it and apply it. All best processes belong to me through this faculty. In order to live in a rational world the people in it have to be rational. I recognize the authority of reason and reason alone. The law was not made by man, but the laws that govern success in relationship are preexisting and immutable. If I want to live in a rational world, I must behave rationally in rational relationship in rational environments.
I am a citizen of the world.
By Shivastus Solomonicus
I have been asked repeatedly to write down my techniques for what I learned to do with human behavior and psychology. I think Cris Blakk will particularly find this technique interesting so I dedicate this blog to him. https://plus.google.com/115599668920707439466/posts
When I think a person might be behaving strategically towards me, which is any unprovoked deviation from rational relationship for the purpose of maximizing what they are getting from the relationship without contributing equal value, or an attempt to establish dominance or leverage themselves, or refusing to participate, communicate, understand I have a little test to see if they are being self-referentially consistent.
Most people in trying to falsify another person do so from their own perspective making visual emotional judgements. “I feel that you are wrong, therefore you are wrong”. In order to actually falsify someone you have to do so from their perspective, which means understanding their philosophy if it is valid and non arbitrary, and if it is sound prove to them that their behaviors are not congruent with their beliefs.
I will use a tautology of the behavior or the strategic communication on them and see how they react to their own strategy. If they respond as they want me to respond when they use it I know they are not intentionally being strategic, but if they don’t I know it is some manner of subterfuge.
I came up with this technique from my ASCENDING DRAGON STYLE TAI CHI that i created when I was in Washington state. The concept is that you only turn the energy used to attack you back on your opponent. You must make your ego very small and remove your judgments and interpretations from the interaction to ensure that they are in relationship with their own tactics through you. I also sometimes refer to this as the silver ray technique. http://finscribeofwisdom.blogspot.com/2012/10/ascending-dragon-style-tai-chi.html
One of the tests for intelligence in animals is to see how long it takes them to realize that they are fighting their own reflection. The mirror technique is fascinating because you get to see how the person is in relationship with their own strategies. There is a part of my consciousness that sits back and just observes. If you use 100% of your energy for the physical stuff or the emotional stuff you will not have the energy to sit back and learn and remember. You can’t be completely invested in the conflict, you have to have a reserve of energy to learn and remember so that you can improve and compensate for that strategy in the future.
They are not fighting me, they are fighting themselves. Sometimes people become aware of this. Other times they become psychotic and feel they must destroy me. They use as much dumb physical force as they muster and they enter a self destruction loop. They become completely unconscious and completely obsessed with my destruction. Paul Eckman refers to this as a refractory state, he says that a permanent refractory state is synonymous with insanity. This is the technique I used to troll trolls and entire groups of trolls off the internet. Right now I am apparently too controversial for facebook, lol. They won’t let me have a single profile and it has been 6 months. WINNING!