This introduction is a preface to the article as well as an introduction. It has been blown up and stripped down and what remains is a general hodgepodge of insights that I’ve kept for their value in illustrating and defining Seq Comp. There are other parts of the article that are similar to this, the reason being is, everything is an example of Seq Comp, meaning any point can be a point to pivot into another aspect of it.
Sequencing and Comparison is the product of the objective search for causes. Included in that search is understanding the causes of my thoughts, feelings, and behavior, as well as the thoughts, feelings and behavior of others. Sequencing and Comparison is a discovery found searching for answers to the questions why people are the way they are, why the world is as it is, and why I was how I was, and am how I am.
I was about 30 years old when I began to realize that most of what people are is the impressions left upon them throughout their experience in life. The world molds the people and the people mold the world. My intellectual awakening came through the objective study of politics. I reset my values recognizing them to be a product of impressed value, but ultimately, the value of subjects cannot be denied, and people like things, which causes them to like other things, and degree and distinction of like determines identity.
In a search for objective good I developed principle-based hierarchies that I applied in decision making and to the rules and structure of society. Hierarchies were created, applied, and abandoned once deficiencies were discovered. Liberty was identified as the ever-present universal interest, established in the fact that everyone wants to do what they want to do. All creatures can do what they want to do if they are not imposed on, either physically or circumstantially. Imposition as the basis of ethics is ideal and I apply it to decision making, counting everything as good so long as it doesn’t impose. There is no situation where it ceases to be correct.
After recognizing cause and effect, purifying my judgement of true and false, removing bias, and anchoring my moral judgements in liberty, I identified problems within the political and economic system. I drafted outlines for solutions that correct systemic as well as symptomatic problems and wrote about the deficiencies of proposed solutions and positions that dominate mainstream as well as fringe thinking. I discovered people were not interested in information that challenged their beliefs, even if such information proposed feasible solutions for the problems their causes claimed to seek solutions for.
My arguments are structured on facts rooted in credible sources that build a straight hallway to conclusions that wall off incorrect positions. By wall off I mean that every fact properly ordered causes a number of assertions to be untrue. The resulting silence is a product of a failure to understand, or a decision not to acknowledge, both of which are equally detrimental to the reformer as an indication he has failed to draw attention to his ideas and positions. It doesn’t matter to what extent I simplified, or to what degree of precision I use in expressing my points, people have a choice of whether they want to acknowledge them. When something challenges the value of a subject they value, in showing it to be false instead of true, bad instead of good, inefficient or impossible, people choose not to acknowledge it rather than have their preferred value of the subject impacted.
The challenge was understanding why people liked what they liked and why people do not like what is true. How and why do people cling to positions they cannot defend? In a comment exchange I was accused of believing I have a monopoly on the truth, and my response was it seems that way because I am loyal to it. The effect of this loyalty is, when I think I know something or I take a position and someone shows me I am wrong, I abandon the incorrect position and adopt the correct one. It’s in my interest, and the interest of every individual to do so, which is why I needed to understand why other people do not do the same.
Sequencing and Comparison was discovered on a day when I thought efficiency was an innate comparison of details that produced human thought. Efficiency is not a comparison, it is a product of value comparing production related sequences. On the same day, I was analyzing an incident my daughter had at school which took place in a text exchange. The cause and effect sequence a conscious result exists in, preceded the identification of the comparisons, but the comparisons were identified at about the same time. I wrote an article called Understanding Conscious Events and Applying Measures. I improved the article but still didn’t have a firm enough grasp of the material which required further consideration in many areas to properly define and articulate what would become sequencing and comparison.
Thought consists of the cause and effect position of detail and comparisons of those details and sequences. Details are gathered through senses and consist of sight, sound, taste, smell, and feeling. Feeling consists of external sensations as well as internal sensations. An impression consists of different senses and often the association of multiple subjects.
There are 4 comparisons of detail responsible for all thought. Truth, cause and effect, morality, and value. No thought has ever been produced that is not a product of these comparisons.
A detail is understood as the effect of some cause and the cause of some effect.
A detail is understood as being good or bad morally depending on whether or not it imposes.
A detail is considered to be true or false, or probably true or probably false when details do not exist to conclusively make a determination.
A detail has value to an individual based on the sensations it produces or its association with other details that produce sensations.
The mind is always set to an objective and the objective is a valued purpose.
A purpose has value based on the sensation it produces directly, or indirectly through associations with objects that produce sensations.
Thoughts themselves occur in various forms with visual thoughts varying in degrees of vibrancy. The shape of thoughts is not the subject of this article but it’s worth mentioning in explaining the source of thoughts and these mechanisms that produce them. Visual thoughts take place on a borderless black canvas and flash into the mind sometimes vibrantly like slides, and other times fade in like a partially developed picture. Thoughts are also auditory; the mind is equipped for multitrack production and playback. As I’m writing this, the words before I write them are audible in my mind with no associated imagery. At the same time, I’m listening to Fog Hat “slow ride” in my mind where the vocals and guitar are emphasized and there are some visuals which consist of what I perceive the singer to look like as well as light moving as a representation of how the guitar sounds. (I probably heard the song earlier, it isn’t a song I’m particularly fond of.) There is also the sound of the birds in the trees, the interstate behind me, a door closing on a car, various other intermittent sounds in my environment. I could go on, including what I am seeing but the substance of thoughts isn’t the objective. The objective is the source of thoughts, how the mind produces thoughts, the innate comparisons of information that furnishes each individual with reality and offers an explanation for why creatures think.
In past articles I’ve written on this subject, or more accurately, different versions of the same article, I begin with defining the components of the comparisons and explaining how they manifest in experiences. I always begin with cause and effect, but cause and effect cannot be determined before a detail is determined to be true or false.
True/False is an innate processor of information, and in many cases, it is a nonconscious process built on what has been proven or previously accepted as being true. For example, earlier I saw a state trooper parked in a clearing in the forest near the off ramp to the rest area. I didn’t have to deliberate or compare information to determine it was true. Based on my knowledge of what the car looks like and the general reliability of my sight, I look up, and I know it is true, as my senses have proven reliable. Most things presented as true we accept as true so long as it does not contradict something known or believed to be true.
The mind operates according to laws of true and false and cause and effect. When something is told to us or we see something that violates our laws of truth there is an alert. We’ve all listened to someone tell us things and something they said contradicts what we know or thought we know to be true. Depending on the value of the correction or our interests in the interaction we either challenge their assertion or allow them to continue in error, but we are aware and have a sense that what they were telling us is not true.
There were interesting projections that took place when I saw the highway patrol car sitting between the trees. I considered the cause of the FHP car being at the location it was at. The interest of the FHP is to find crime, not the reactive enforcement of laws or protecting and serving the public. The same as any profession an officer is measured by production, the more laws an officer enforces the more valuable the officers’ service is to the department and the more opportunity he or she has for salary increases, promotions, and other career advancement. This is a law of understanding to me, albeit flexible as I understand there are exceptions where an officer’s morality is a greater governor than career incentive. This law of motivation is the first consideration in determining why the officer has positioned himself in between the trees facing the off ramp. It doesn’t seem like an advantageous position for finding crime, mainly because drivers are decelerating as they enter the rest area and at the rest area itself, there are few opportunities for crime.
The previous paragraph was not my thoughts at the time, but it was the basis for my thoughts. I see the officer and recognize he is ill situated to find crime. My next thought is a suspicion that the officer is observing me. I think about the circumstances. I am an out of place figure, my general appearance is not consistent with that of the general public. There is a southbound and a northbound rest area. I am at the southbound rest area. I spent the night at the south bound rest area. The previous day and night I spent at the northbound rest area, and the night before this I spent at the south bound rest area. This is suspicious behavior for a non-suspicious looking person. It seems possible, especially considering the officer is positioned with a direct view of my location at the picnic tables, that the officer is observing me.
As to the reason, I came to Florida for court on October 22nd and was unexpectedly given a court date for October 30th. I didn’t have enough money to return to Wisconsin and then return to Florida in time for my court date and I also didn’t have the money to stay at a hotel so stayed in my car for the 8 days in between court dates.
The point is everything above probably consisted of a few flashes of thought but represents the basis of my thoughts at the time. I look up from writing, notice the officer, and believe he may be observing me. Everything above is the foundations of these thoughts and perception, and the thoughts that follow.
I imagined a scenario of being confronted by the officer as I sat at the bench. I thought about what I would say if confronted by FHP. I know I do not have to talk with the officer unless the officer has reasonable suspicion. Reasonable suspicion means an officer has a reason to believe I was involved in a crime that has been committed, is being committed, or could be committed based on the totality of the circumstances. I imagine the officer with other officers approaching me leading in with a casual introduction of how you doing? I ask the officers what reason they have to believe that a crime has been committed, is being committed, or could be committed based on the totality of the circumstances? I Imagine different outcomes, the most likely being a response related to loitering which ultimately results in me having to leave.
This is an introductory example of what I am referring to by true/false laws of the mind in preparation for a more thorough explanation in the substance of the article.
Thought is the product of cause and effect and 3 comparisons of detail: value, true/false, and morality. To disprove this theory only requires a person to identify any thought in human history that does not reduce to these processes. The first place a person may go is considering detail comparison like shorter or longer, colors, or something along those lines, but these are comparisons intended to establish details to distinguish one subject from another, to apply value in purpose. Existence is experienced through the collection of sensory information, and the mind produces thought based on cause and effect and these comparisons. Thought determines perception and produces feelings and behavior.
The value of a subject is measured by the feelings the subject produces or the utility of a subject in fulfilling some purpose or acquiring some object of desire. Of course, much of what we value or like, has no inherent value but derives value from associations with other subjects that have inherent value because they produce good feelings.
Mood is cyclical. Thoughts and perception determine feelings, but feelings influence thoughts and perception. How you feel is based on interaction with your environment which has to do with how you perceive your environment. Perception consists of the impressions the subjects within your environment have left on you previously, which influence your thoughts and feelings. Many times, in comfortable settings absent other people, your thoughts alone determine how you feel. The carrying forth of cause and effect in the mind, fantasy, imagination, worry, produce close to the same feelings as if the individual were experiencing the scenario.
Prior to making these discoveries being a person who observes nearly no result without considering the causes that produced it, I understood my thoughts, behavior, and feelings, exploring the source of negative feelings, causes within my environment, as well as exploring my history to uncover the creation of values associated with feelings and behavior. The objective study of myself, combined with my great range of experience in life and with people, contributes to my understanding of how human beings’ function.
In the identification of sequencing and comparison I discovered why denial exists, why the average intelligence of human beings is far below where it potentially could be through the corruption of innate processes that produce intelligence. All things can be understood by all people depending on their degree of attention, which is determined by their value of a subject, which is largely determined by their existing value of subjects. All subjects are basic details assembled in simple cause and effect relationships. This means all subjects can be understood by all people depending on the individual’s value of the subject which directs attention.
The mind has been made to seem much more complex than it is and people more complex than they actually are. I have many general criticisms of psychology without having formally studied it, but from seeing the results it produces, distant familiarity with some concepts I recognize it is little more than survey analysis subjectively interpreted and the categorization of thoughts, feelings, and behavior. As previously mentioned at best it is the measurement of the environment on the mind. Clinically psychology seeks to bring individual’s values in line with the popular values of society, it is an effort to mold people’s mind to cause them to feel better, or to modify behavior by altering perception. There is a propensity to impose ideas of normal and normal is a measure of how well popular ideas are accepted, and these ideas form the basis for normal thought as well as positive and negative feelings. It isn’t the study of the human mind, it is the study of how the human mind responds to the environment, and a corrupt environment creates a corrupted normal, and this serves as the baseline of the human mind.
One feature is an authoritarian culture, where doing is purely a product of immediate reward versus no reward or immediate punishment, which for many extends into the ultimate through religion or even the belief in one all powerful and arbitrary god. Even in the absence of religion, or god, typically parents do not directly engage a child’s self interest in an act without some unrelated motivators (reward or punishment). Sequencing and Comparison identifies the potential impact on intelligence from authority-based thinking.
I think psychology has a very arbitrary system of classifying disorders. The thoughts, feelings, and behavior of disorders overlap with one another and overlap with normal. Diagnosis is only as good as an individual’s ability to articulate and the therapist’s ability to correctly interpret, which carries with it a great degree of subjectivity. Studying the human ability to learn seems to be centered on memory and fails to recognize the role of understanding in memory. Details are not saved frames or impressions; details are chained to other details though cause and effect relationships. Some chains cannot be formed due to underlying chains.
For example, when I was 20 years old, possibly younger in the Milwaukee County House of Corrections, I read a book containing encyclopedic information about dictators. Initially I thought the book contained typos that the US supported these despots, forgot the word not in some places or something to that effect. By the end I thought it could be a work of fiction, and this was because in 20 years, despite not coming from a patriotic family, I had no impressions that the United States was not the rhetoric and propaganda I was led to believe it was. It would be roughly 8 years before those ideas would be seriously challenged.
The obvious question is why I don’t learn about psychology before making criticism in ignorance, and aside from the judgements formed at this distance, the reason is in the few articles I’ve read, I’ve been critical of or had underlying explanations for. There is a time factor involved and I don’t see a benefit. I can analyze and modify my own thoughts, feelings, and behavior through SeqComp as well as generally understand the thoughts, feelings and behavior of others through SeqComp, so what purpose does psychology serve, since I am not interested in a career in psychology? SeqComp consists of understanding simple innate processes and how they relate to self-interest, meaning it isn’t terribly difficult for people to learn and use. People are using it regardless as the subconscious framework that produces thought, but there are numerous benefits to understanding it.
My supreme value isn’t morality or liberty, but truth. My value of liberty is based on liberty being true, which serves as the basis for my morality. Hence the title of the book, Truth over Everything, and Liberty is True. Objectivity is the key.
Another example of SeqComp in understanding behavior comes from an exchange with a woman on a dating app. Her intents on the app were to find someone to marry, whereas my intentions are to hang out, friendship and an emphasis on sex.
She writes “You seem like you might be hot, lol. (but I’m here to fall in love)”
I respond …falling in love consists of finding a person who will play a role in your life which includes covering your insecurities.
What I meant by playing a role is people have an idea of happiness which consists of objects of desire, and many of these objects are not inherent value objects but objects that have value through associations developed through popular impressions. When a person is looking for a relationship, they already have an idea of what the person is supposed to be, not general attributes but a predefined character. The potential partner has a role in this person’s fantasy and the woman will try to mold the man into or persuade the man into playing that role. This isn’t intended to reduce relationships to this dynamic, only mentioned as one aspect of the general pursuit of relationships where expectations are based on finding someone who will play the role in your fantasy, to become a fixture in another person’s idea of happiness.
In another exchange the woman writes “it actually is a tall order for me to leave the comfort of my home- and the minute I get a feeling of dread or regret, I simply refuse to move forward (I’ll cancel). I’m looking for a feeling that overrides my natural homebody tendencies to WANT to go be with somebody.”
I responded … I’m not trying to persuade you, but I did want to share a thought related to the first part of your last message. It seems like your pursuit of a relationship is intent on dealing with social anxiety. Mood is cyclical, consisting of thoughts that produce feelings, interactions that produce feelings, and feelings influence your thoughts, which in turn influences your feelings and so on and so forth. You shouldn’t make decisions based on misunderstood negative feelings. For example, tomorrow if you follow through meeting me. Maybe you get in your car and your mind begins spinning negative outcomes that produce these feelings, and emotionally, an outcome or situation imagined is only slightly less stressful than if you are actually experiencing the scenario and oftentimes more stressful. To remedy these issues a person must push through the feelings and proceed to the activity. When the experience doesn’t produce the anticipated result, over time these impressions may potentially replace the impressions responsible for the anxiety.
She doesn’t mention directly that she has anxiety, but it can be inferred from her statement that she has negative feelings that cause her to cancel her plans. Her desire for a relationship is as I mentioned in my message to her an effort to cover insecurities which she mentions herself stating she is looking for someone who will cause feelings to override her natural homebody tendencies. If she was satisfied with those comforts, she wouldn’t be seeking someone to enable her to broaden her opportunities for experience. Her other statement that she plans activities and cancels them because of last minute dread or apprehension suggests there is a social anxiety aspect to it. Clearly, she wants to leave her house, but the value of the activities is reduced by her anticipation of a negative experience. Her pursuit of a relationship like many others, is to cover that anxiety, as opposed to dealing with the difficulties in her life. She may be interested in a long-term relationship for other reasons, but she may settle and ultimately be dissatisfied with what she finds because her motivation is rooted in covering a problem instead of addressing it. There are many people who are driven into attachment by an effort to cover insecurities as I mentioned previously.
Social anxiety has many roots and one root cannot be addressed exclusively through understanding values, because it consists of impressions, which returns me to the subconscious. The subconscious consists of impressions from experience, what the individual believes is true forms the laws of the mind, through sequencing and comparison. There is a basis to deny sequencing and comparisons as mechanisms, but they are undeniably the purposes of thought, and the framework for experiencing reality. Reality takes place through sequencing and comparison. It represents the relevant switches or assignments for all perceivable information. There are no other reasons to compare details. Our thoughts are the product of solving for cause, effect, true and false, like and dislike, and morally right or wrong. The subconscious mind solves for these variables according to value, and our thoughts are the conscious record and expression of solving for these variables. It is the variables for motion in an environment with free willed conscious objects, and the mind is a reflection of accounting for these variables.
Efforts to learn away anxiety through sequences, like believing the cause of anxiety is holding myself to a higher standard than others hold me to, or similar rationalizing, does not override impressions from experience. The perceptions and feelings of experience usually have to be replaced with perceptions and feelings that cancel out the source of bias in a way that confirms ideas intent on relieving social anxiety.
Social anxiety is a very deep subject, I mention this story not to address it in its entirety but as an example of how understanding SeqComp paves the way for analyzing thoughts, feelings, and behavior. The root of social anxiety rests in the propensity of an individual to infer the unstated conclusions of others, as well as a value of being liked by others, and this can branch off into issues of confidence, which branches off into the certainty of an individual’s truth, and into fear which is a product of uncertainty as it relates to desired outcomes.
The subconscious consists of laws of knowledge (true), laws of experience (true), and sequencing and comparison. Actually, the subconscious is purely sequencing and comparison because laws of knowledge and laws of experience is a true/false determination.
By laws of knowledge I’m referring to what an individual thinks they know to be true. People learn things about a subject, understanding the cause and effect relationship of details that produces a subject. Yet a fact or a sequence of facts creates laws in the mind, because for everything believed to be true, or any conclusion considered as true, prevents a variety of other information from also being true. Within subjects, their facts, conclusions, and even the relationship of subjects with other subjects there are laws that form the foundation of how an individual perceives the reality they exist in, how their values form, where their attention is directed, and what they think. Laws of experience are what is true to an individual based on what they’ve experienced, it’s your prejudice, prejudgments, bias, and stereotyping of the world. Sights and sounds that have feelings attached to them, that create expectations based on those past impressions that causes the individual to feel things without consciously considering them.
People have ideas about things and people based on previous impressions, including how the interaction made them feel. This becomes an expectation and will produce a prejudgment draw on one’s behavior. People have prejudgments of people based on race, style, location, nationality, hair color, etc. If all the people you interacted with with red hair acted a certain way that caused you to feel a certain way, it doesn’t matter if you know red hair has nothing to do with determining their behavior. When you see people with red hair your mind expects the behavior, and your body responds which influences your thoughts and influences your feelings and behavior. Once interaction begins and familiarity develops, our expectations of the individual will be different, but our expectations of people with red hair will likely remain the same.
Any interaction with a common characteristic serves as information about that characteristic, including not only what, but how it made you feel, and it will serve as a basis for expectations for future encounters with that characteristic. (Categorization is a product of efficiency, value). Everyone has a bias related to groups, the difference between someone who has prejudice or is racist, and everyone else, is once interaction begins, the individual is treated based on his or her behavior, and not based on the prejudgment.
Incomplete sequencing in an individual’s life, repressed memories, leave portions of the mind uncertain, and uncertainty is fear. I know this because recently I didn’t so much uncover, as much as I was able to confirm some childhood memories and the confirmation of these memories have had a perceivable effect on me emotionally, and cognitively. A small piece of uncertainty in your subconscious chain, can impact how you feel generally, which influences your thoughts and nearly every aspect of your life. I notice the change which is subtle but pronounced, like having a splinter, where you hardly notice the discomfort, but when you remove the splinter, the discomfort that you became used to, is more noticeable in absence than it was when it was present.
Everything we understand and everything we are, consists of chains of detail, combined with other chains of details, which create combinations of chains. This is what I refer to as sequencing, which plays a major role in learning, recalling detail, and the formation of thought, but also our neutral emotional disposition. I believe the mind as it relates to storing memory, store events as sequences. For example, someone may say something, and this causes us to remember a detail that contradicts the assertion, but if pressed further we may not be able to remember other details associated with that detail. The reason being is the detail has been recalled as a contradiction to an assertion, but the sequence that the detail exists in may have never been understood.
Our own lives as we perceive them are long sequences broken up by days or rest. I think the mind requires a consistent understanding of our experiences that extends across our innate channels of thought, true/false, morality, and value. Once we have the values for an experience the sequences are complete and we file it away, which doesn’t necessarily mean we have all the correct information, only that the events make sense to us based on the cause and effect organization of the details. It can be brought back to consciousness by being prompted by something in our environment. I theorize repressed memories in the broader chain of our truth, leave people in an unperceivable state of uncertainty, and uncertainty is the source of anxiety and fear. Uncertainty resulting from repressed or unconfirmed sequences of experience, is a recent development in my own life, and it is relevant to the sequencing cause and effect portion of this article, but not a topic I’ve thoroughly addressed or tried to present in the article.
There are laws of knowledge, laws of experience, and Sequencing and Comparison which is the organizational structure and basic comparisons that produce these laws and produce our thoughts.
In an age with such advanced technology, some may be skeptical of a model of how the mind produces thoughts. Neuroscience and neuropsychology is doing what? It is associating a part of the brain with categories of thought, feeling, and non-thinking function, inclusive of chemical interactions and other physical variables for activating areas of the brain, and recording the effects. For example, the Mayo Clinic states that a group of neurons not firing may be responsible for depression. Of course, there is a reason why that group of neurons isn’t firing, and it is likely related to circumstances that produce patterns of thought and feeling not produced by this group of neurons. They know this group can be chemically stimulated to begin firing which is why medication is prescribed. Many people with depression who feel better taking medication, often fall back into depression sometime after they stop taking the medication, probably because the circumstances internally (their understanding) and more importantly externally (means and opportunity), still exist that lead to patterns of thoughts and feelings that lead to symptoms of depression. Neuroscience and neuropsychology are valuable in understanding the brain and what is produced where, but it isn’t a tool of understanding why people think what they think.
The first section introduces the processors. The second section is CDIARP, which is an anagram that defines the full sequence of a consciously created result. The third section features the first application of SeqComp tracing, in an event taking place in a social setting. The processes that produced the event are explained according to relevant causes according to recorded details. The second application is the analysis of an event that demonstrates how sequencing habits can become compromised due to efficiency, and why the over emphasis of efficiency which discourages thought is prevalent among the human species. The third application is a naturally occurring YouTube comment exchange used to make points about denialism as understood through SeqComp. The fourth application considers a few scant ideas of psychology including a survey regarding negative thinking as understood through SeqComp. The sixth application briefly considers feelings and how feelings are understood though SeqComp.
Processors of the Mind
If anything doesn’t make sense in the introduction of these processors there’s no need to stress yourself trying to understand them in isolation as the applications in the article will show the processors in context which may facilitate understanding.
Processors of the mind are comparisons that produce thought. Processors are sub-conscious generators of thought discovered by identifying the purposes of thought in relation to all thought causes. It is a fair criticism to say these are not processes of thought, but purposes of thought. However, the intended purpose is the same as desire, and because there is no impediment to the mind desiring to produce a thought, and producing it, the purpose of thoughts is the cause of thoughts. Those causes are identified as these processors which all thought emanates from.
Human beings gather detail through their senses, and these details are processed through 4 general processors: Cause and Effect, Value, True/False, and Morality.
Sequencing and Comparison
Cause and Effect Value
Every subject is the effect of a cause, and will be the cause of other effects in multiple sequencing contexts.
Every subject has value derived from the feelings it produces. +/-
Every subject has a Right or Wrong moral assignment based on perceived imposition.
Every subject is regarded as True or False or Probably True or Probably False.
All thoughts are a product of cause and effect sequencing to determine value, morality, truth and the fulfillment of valued purposes.
Thoughts are produced according to objective, and objective is a product of value.
a: Cause and Effect
Everything that is, is because it was caused by something that produced its existence and will be the cause of some other effect.
Value is the comparison of greater than and less than. All details have a value assigned to them. The simplest and most applicable definition for SeqComp is degree of like. Value is like a store with every detail or subject an individual has perceived marked with a price tag that reflects his value of it. The word value means value.
A detail’s value is either Inherent or Associative.
Inherent Value is derived from the sensation a subject produces, or the learned value it has for a purpose.
- Sensational Value is the value of the feelings attributable to a subject.
- Learned Value is a product of understanding the assembly of a subject’s components for a purpose.
A beverage has inherent value and a straw learned value for the purpose of facilitating the consumption of the beverage.
Associative Value is value a subject derives from an association with a subject of inherent value.
Circumstantial Influence of Value
Circumstances influence an individual’s values based on the degree of desire or need. A person who is thirsty has a much higher value of water than a person who is hydrated.
Social Influence on Value
An individual’s value of subjects is influenced by the values of groups he belongs to, as common values are the bonding element of the group, and the value of new subjects will be influenced by the majority value of the group. An individual’s value of a subject may increase or decrease when a person is in the presence of the group, and he may adopt the group’s common value of the subject irrespective of being in the group’s presence. The value of the group consists of the sensations associated with interaction with the group.
The influence of a value is also subject to change based on groups beyond an individual’s immediate belonging. The values of the broader population, neighborhood, city, state, or nation can influence the value of subjects. Much of this is identity based associative value, but also valued social purposes. An individual gains inclusion in a group by adopting the group’s values.
A group is considered 2 or more, where the influence of an individual’s values occurs through as few as 1 other person.
Misunderstood value is value that comes from subconscious associations, where impressions are left that produce feelings, but the individual associates the feelings with subjects not responsible for the feelings. I provide an example of this towards the end of the article, where a commercial featuring a toy has music and shows children playing. There are feelings that result from the idea of social interaction the child sees, and music produces feelings (even without words), and these feelings become associated with the toy and give the toy value.
Values are subject to influence based on an individual’s interest in an outcome, i.e. how an outcome relates to an individual’s purposes.
All human beings are wholly self-interested, we always do what we want. An individual who exhibits selfless behavior does so because the sensational or learned value of the idea of the sacrifice, is greater than the value of the subject of sacrifice.
Because human beings are self-interested, all human interaction is the exchange of value for value.
C: Moral Value Comparison
Moral Value Comparison is an individual’s conception of good and bad. For every person myself excluded, moral rules are compared to the value of other moral rules and compared to the value of subjects. For example, a person’s value against theft is lower than their value against murder. A person’s value of a subject may exceed their value against theft, but not the value against murder, therefore they may steal, but will not murder to fulfill a desire. Obvious, but the relationship describes an individual’s range of behavior (which is subject to change based on circumstances), in the value of subjects versus the value of their morals. As expressed in Liberty as the Basis, violating a moral through behavior is the value of the feeling gained through the immoral act, versus the negative feeling of violating the moral prior to the act, and the anticipation of the feeling (guilt) (personal value reduction self esteem) a person will experience for having violated their moral.
Moral value comparison is not a subject determined through normal value processing because every person has a conception of good and bad that is triggered by a cause that produces moral reasoning. Morality is the governor of action, evolutionarily relevant to ensure cooperation and individual liberty as elements of survival.
Morality is triggered by imposition and moral rules are subject to change. People rationalize acts in order to protect their value of themselves and maintain their morality. However, if circumstances or the value of an act causes them to violate their mortality often, then their morality changes and they abandon rationalizing.
D: True False Comparison
True false sequencing is initiated by contradiction where a detail is presented that is inconsistent with a known detail of a subject. The contradiction can either be a learned detail or experienced, but the extent to which one uses true false depends largely on their first contact with the subject, or what a person learns first.
CDIARP: Sequencing of a Consciously Created Result
A consciously created result has a predefined sequence I express through the acronym CDIARP.
CDIARP is Circumstances, Desire, Intents, Action, Results, and Purposes.
Circumstances include the spatial area a person exists in and has access to, as well as their access to resources which most relevantly consists of their access to money. The immediate space you are in determines your opportunities to create a result. More opportunities can be created depending on an individual’s access to other spaces and access to resources within those spaces, but a consciously created result begins with circumstances.
Desire is a product of value, but the value of a subject is largely determined by circumstances. We begin with circumstances, but desire is also a product of an individual’s values. Motivation begins with circumstances, because circumstances influence an individual’s value of a subject as well as their opportunity. Desire is a product of value influenced by circumstances, and desire becomes intent based on an individual’s opportunity which is determined by their circumstances.
Intended Purpose: The subject of desire is the intended purpose.
Intended Action: The action an individual intends to create a result
Intended Result: The result an individual intends to achieve his intended purpose.
A person at a carnival desires a stuffed bear. Their motivation is a product of their circumstances consisting of a setting that provides the opportunity to gain a stuffed bear, and the value of the stuffed bear to the person.
The participant must strike a pad with a mallet, the force of which is transferred to a puck that is propelled up a tower where it must strike a bell to win the prize.
The desire is the intended purpose of gaining the bear.
The intended action is striking the pad.
The intended result is the puck traveling to the top and striking the bell, which fulfills the intended purpose, gaining a bear.
The act in a sequence of a consciously created result intended to fulfill the purpose.
The effects produced by an action.
The purposes served by the results of an action to all affected subjects.
To continue with the previous example, insert the scenario where the participant’s action fails to accomplish the intended purpose. The force generated is insufficient for the puck to reach the bell. He fails to achieve his intended purpose winning the stuffed bear. Of course the intended purpose of the owner of the game is fulfilled having retained the bear which contributes to profit.
To understand the event further, we can consider the value of the bear. Insert a female companion. The bear may have no inherent value to the individual. The bear is desired based on its perceived value to his companion which is of value to him as he believes fulfilling her desire, will increase his value to his companion, which has value to him, because relationships consist of the exchange of valued behavior for valued behavior.
The woman may have no value of the bears’ qualities. Her value of the bear may be associated with her value of a man’s ability to accomplish an intended result. She may value the intent regardless of the result. The intent informs her that the man’s value of her is high enough to try to fulfill what he perceives to be a subject of her desire. This serves the purpose of increasing the value of herself, which increases his value, because she likes the way she feels when she is around him.
Perhaps the story itself has associative value as an event she has seen. She saw the event and imagined how it would feel, and that feeling creates the value of the experience. Maybe she saw the event in a movie. The value of the experience and the bear’s contribution may be based on how the movie made her feel as a whole, and she associates these sensations with that experience.
We could go on, but this example is intended to demonstrate processors and sequencing in preparation for analysis of events that reveal the corruption of these processors. There is nothing in this scenario that would trigger moral sequencing or true false analysis. Unless the individual in many attempts believes the game is unwinnable, then the man may become angry believing the owner of the game has imposed on his means through deception.
CDIARP is not particularly useful as a tool to think through. Even for a conscious event it suffices to think of things in cause and effect, but for the general population, consciously considering CDIARP helps the individual build better sequencing habits and creates an awareness of these basic components that conscious results exist in. CDIARP should be a habit when considering any consciously created result but it isn’t. People tend to see actions and results absent the causes that produce them.
Application One: Old Woman Robbed: Processes of Thought
The following is a CDIARP organization of an event inclusive of processing, meaning the organization and processing was taking place without the individual’s awareness of the organization or processors, which would not be identified until months later. Which isn’t relevant because CDIARP and the identified components of thought provide the complete frame by frame basis for human thought, decision making, and ultimately perceived reality.
Even now, having identified sequencing and comparison, unless it is related to explaining SeqComp or purposes related to it, I don’t think about SeqComp, although I think from SeqComp. Everyone thinks from SeqComp, but the difference is the extent to which sequencing is considered and the contamination of the processors.
I was at a friends’ apartment with other people I know waiting for the 2nd round of the NBA Western Conference Playoffs to begin, I believe game 4 between the Blazers and the Nuggets. (2019) While waiting we watched the local news. A local news broadcast was reporting men who dragged an elderly woman and stole her purse. My first thought was the action and result are a product of circumstances, which are a product of systems, and I assigned partial responsibility for the event to the consenting collective who produced the circumstances. There is no purse snatching unless circumstances exist where there is desperation for money, and there is no more efficient way to get money to satisfy the need or desire for it. It isn’t that drawn out of a process. It is near instantaneous with the most conscious feature of it being initiating responsibility resting with the general public.
The details are a woman was dragged and robbed. What comes back is the responsibility for the act rests with the public. This thought is built on laws that systems produce circumstances that produce the desire to rob.
Shawn’s baby mama Missy commented “it’s fucked up they dragged an old woman”, which implies her thoughts began as a result and action. It is implied and not known because although my first thoughts were of the circumstances producing motivation, my first comment was “I want to see the video”. Meaning she may have already considered that circumstances produced the result but her point of emphasis on individual responsibility was the woman’s age and that she was dragged. Or as mentioned she saw the action and the result and didn’t consider what produced the action, and her entire impression of the event is based on the action and the result. The headline aired multiple times before the story itself aired.
Second, my attention turned to the detail that the woman was dragged. It implied malice in the crime that was not required to fulfill the purpose of getting her money. I surmised the woman probably didn’t relinquish her purse and was dragged as she held onto it. The only other explanation was the woman was fighting back and then it’s possible she was dragged in retribution for injuries she inflicted. The local news channel in the full broadcast report confirmed the most probable explanation: the woman held onto her purse.
My mind moved to truth and efficiency. I considered the lens through which the event was being reported. The news media was intentionally and unintentionally misleading the public. The headline and report emphasized the woman was dragged which as I stated, implied unprovoked or unnecessary malice on the part of the assailants. Sensationalizing the event is intent on ratings but also serves the unintended purpose of demonizing the suspects. The omission of the circumstances that cause people to rob reinforces the myth that people are defective without acknowledging the environment as a contributing cause. It implies responsibility rests with the people involved in the act, and not the general public who is responsible for the systems and environment producing the circumstances that cause people to rob.
People who saw the story with me had an issue with it being an old lady. I commented that if you are going to randomly rob a person, it makes more sense to rob an elderly person than it does to rob someone who is better equipped to defend themselves. In retrospect I add the act will become less efficient due to the increased level of resistance without the presumption of a greater reward in trying to rob a younger victim.
I carried cause and effect forward in my mind. I thought about the social consequences of had they not dragged the woman and obtained the purse, how this could impact their self-esteem and social standing. I made the comment as a joke along the lines of how it would look or how it would feel if you can’t even rob an old woman.
Why did I joke about it? This is a retrospective analysis not thoughts taking place at the time of the event. Considering the purposes of alternate details within the event (all cause and effect) I came across additional motivation for why it was necessary to drag the woman. The consideration of those purposes was funny to me and hilarity has inherent value. There is innate satisfaction derived from bringing the reward of laughter to others and it enriches the experience itself if they understand it. Socially it has the potential to increase the value of the person who causes other people to laugh, and when it doesn’t your own laughter has inherent value.
I probably seemed like I was advocating robbing and dragging old ladies, but I acknowledge that the act itself is wrong. At the same time, people consent to and even enthusiastically support systems that produce circumstances that cause some people the desire to rob old ladies, so it will happen. There is a general indifference I have for these kinds of events because I understand it as an effect of the organization of modern civilization. It is no more notable to me than stepping on an accelerator pedal and a car accelerating.
Upon seeing the result, I thought through cause and effect to build the sequence, and began moral processing based on the known details, recognizing the initiating responsibility resting with the general public. I carried cause and effect forward to account for an action that seemed not essential to creating the intended result. I did this twice based on the most likely causes of the dragging action. I discovered the act of dragging was necessary because the woman refused to let go of her purse. Her age did not influence the moral perception of the act. Her age did prompt value processing in efficiency as I considered the act with a younger victim more capable of defending his or herself. I reached the conclusion that the act was possessed of efficient intent, since presumably the act should require less effort for the same uncertain reward of robbing a younger male. In establishing the cause of the woman being dragged I carried cause and effect forward based on an unsuccessful result. The sequence produced hilarity, which was much more richly imagined than I generalized, which is why I cannot tell you why it was funny because it included scenes and dialogue related to the general ideas of reducing their self-esteem and social judgement. The social value of the concepts caused me to express them.
None of the processes are considered at the time of the event and the details of the news story were only casually considered. By this I mean, what I described in the previous paragraph are the laws and processes that built the thoughts I had at the time. The thoughts themselves were assigning responsibility to the general public for the act, a theory of why she was dragged, the efficiency of an elderly target, and then I imagined scenarios of two failed robbers interacting with people in their neighborhood if they failed. I did not know I was going to write about the event as the event was taking place. Months later, after identifying the processors, the details were considered and an explanation for the thoughts was understood through the processors, as explained in the previous paragraph.
I wrote about that night the next day. I hadn’t seen these people in a longtime and we hung out, went to the bar, and stayed up until about 8am. I wrote about the night the next day and posted it on my website primarily to reflect on a debate I had concerning activism with one of the people present. I didn’t include this event in the article because there was another news story that had more entertainment value, and the article already included subjects related to about 16 hours’ worth of experience.
Some may question if I would feel the same way about robbery if I was a victim and I thought about a time when people tried to rob me. The affirmation felt good in recollection. The short version of the story is three people entered my home and one was armed. I was outside having just returned from driving my dad in my vehicle to help me diagnose a problem I was having. We lived in a house on 21st and Lincoln nearer to Grant, brown house in the back, at a T intersection of an alley.
My daughter escaped from the back door and I saw her running towards 21st street down the alley as I walked up the walkway. She told me people are trying to rob mommy. I entered the house, pulled the first assailant outside and threw him off of the porch. I fought with them briefly, and at one point they may have tried to shoot me. When they were trying to flee I tackled one of them and was hitting him. The other two were in the alley and the one told the other to shoot me. Then he passed the gun to the one who said it who began examining the weapon as if he were trying to diagnose an issue with the gun. The assailant I had on the ground I allowed to squirm away and then I chased them down the alley towards 20st street where they cut through a yard and jumped in their car and drove off.
I’d provide the details but I have written about it elsewhere and I don’t want to appear to be leaning too heavy on this story as a source of pride, which it is, to fight off armed robbers in front of your family to maintain your livelihood should be a proud moment, especially since I had a wad of cash you could see bulging through my jeans and a bottle of pills that could be heard shaking in my pocket. The point of me sharing the story here isn’t about what happened, but what I told my dad as the police were trying to take a statement from Holly. We were silent on the porch, and I said it’s unfortunate that people are in positions where they must do things like this. This happened in 2011 or 2012. A period in my life when I was just beginning to have an intellectual awakening which was both prompted and constrained by understanding that most of what people are is the sum of impressions left upon them during their life in response to their immediate circumstances, which they are not solely responsible for.
Even back then, immediately after the event transpired, my thoughts went to the circumstances that produced the act, and the immediate circumstances confronting the individuals. Why it happened. The immediate sequence consisted of serving someone who knew someone who knew Holly. Typically, I had a very tight distribution network, usually people who sold to other people, and a few consumers who were trustworthy. This is why I didn’t serve people who I didn’t know.
Application 2: Ava and School Policy: Authority Based Thinking
I received a text message from my daughter who asked, “why can’t I wear a hat in school?”
Initially I responded, “it’s policy you know that”, which didn’t do anything to satisfy her curiosity but was my response based on the reasoning she does not have an alternative to get an education and the opportunity for social interaction with her peers. At the time of the text I was driving to a job that was 225 miles away and I was about halfway there which contributed to the haste of my response. Then I texted “I don’t know ask them”.
My initial response is a product of value related to purpose in consideration of efficiency and setting. No moral judgement is considered because I don’t know the motivation and intended purpose of the policy. I confess my ignorance and encourage her to ask the school. From the text “why can’t I wear my hat in school”, my mind constructs the CDIARP and applies the basic measures for processing. I have the result which is the policy. The only moral judgement made is regarding setting. In the application of liberty setting is considered as it relates to property and states: an individual has to accept subjective imposition when interacting with a person in or with their property. One can avoid such imposition by not interacting with individuals in that setting. Avoidance is not an option because the value of my daughter attending school to acquire basic skills in a peer interactive environment, is greater than the value of her wearing a hat. From efficiency in purpose my initial response is it is the policy and she knows this, then realizing I didn’t answer her question I tell her to ask them.
She responded “Okay, but nobody can tell me what the problem is so I want to wear my hat. Apparently, it’s for “identification”. The teacher was behind me and told me I have to take my hat off. What do you mean it’s for identification, that’s BS. How does the top of my head identify me”?
I asked “Why do you need to be identified? I think you are more identifiable by the hat than you are without it.”
I learned the intended purpose of the policy, but I still do not know the motivation for the policy which prompts the question “why do you need to be identified”? The assertion of “I think you are more identifiable by the hat than you are without it” is a product of considering the efficiency of the purpose of the policy.
I went on providing her an analysis.
Text Three: If they can’t answer your questions it’s because they don’t have a good reason for the policy aside from wanting to condition you to arbitrary authority. If you can, get them to admit they don’t have a good reason for the policy and then comply with it. It’s good to recognize that but it doesn’t serve a good purpose to be defiant because you need to participate in school.
Text Four: You have to understand that most people have very limited critical thinking skills, and this includes teachers and school administrators. They do what they are told without questioning the purpose of it or even if it accomplishes the intended purpose. It’s difficult for them to answer simple questions they haven’t asked. They may become frustrated, and then they wonder what’s wrong with you, why are you being difficult, why don’t you just do what you’re told and reproduce the information you’re given on tests. The issue isn’t something wrong with you, it’s what’s wrong with them because their innate ability to think and question has been drummed out of them and replaced with a mindless authoritarian hierarchy. Which means they do what they’re told and expect others to do as they are told depending on where they rank compared to others.
Text Five: The aim of public education is to produce obedient workers capable of compartmentalized skill that can be applied to some productive end. The hat is more about conditioning you to authority than it is about identification or whatever other reason they fled to after you expose the hole in their explanation. Recognizing it is good enough to obstruct that purpose. Now on the subject of purpose, why do you go to school? You go to school because it is a good place to acquire basic academic skills: reading, writing, science and math. Second for the opportunity to build social skills through interaction with your peers. I’m telling you this because although you may be right as you probably are with the hat, creating an issue out of every BS hat rule harms the purposes of you going to school. This means purpose checks pride.
Text Six: Lastly, when I talk about conditioning to authority it isn’t conscious intent. They are not aware of what they are doing when they are doing it. To them it is the way things are, it is a normalized process, so it isn’t as if they see you and say we need to break her will and turn her into a box making clock puncher like the rest of us. It’s more we have a policy, in life there are rules, and people have to follow the rules. There just isn’t any question about the morality or purpose the rules serve. Don’t feel like they have bad intentions, they just serve bad purposes in keeping with heavily impressed social norms. Social norms held in place by the illusion that what exists in this country and the world over is good, when any interested and objective person should be appalled at what modern normalcy has produced. I’m done. If there is an issue, they can call me too, your mom was complaining she can’t spend so much time distracted by these issues. Have a good day.
The purpose of this story is to demonstrate the cause of short sequencing as this event provides two examples. These texts in addition to the purpose of resolving the interruption in my life and my daughter’s education, were also the product of a moral judgement, recognizing my daughter was being imposed on. I presume many people would disagree that the policy is imposition but based on their exposure to school’s with no hat policies, and not on merit. Naturally efficiency is considered in that equation.
The reason we have rules is because we are freer with them than we are without them. Meaning any rule should prevent a greater imposition than it imposes. There are a number of valid reasons for a no hat policy, but I don’t think identification is one. Even in the climate of mass shootings in schools we live in, or in the event of an abduction at school, a no hat policy doesn’t increase protection against these acts. Even if the school shooter or abductor is lazy and doesn’t research the schools no hat policy, my daughter was in the school for over an hour, and wasn’t stopped by a teacher until second period, meaning it isn’t enforced to the degree where anyone with a hat becomes a suspicious person, which is the presumed purpose of the policy. More importantly, the time my daughter was in the school means she was clearly identifiable as a student to not be stopped prior. Meaning the hat did not make her less identifiable. As she asked, “how am I more identifiable by the top of my head”?
I’ve raised my daughter without using punishment to motivate her to do things. Maybe a few times when she was younger, but we are talking about a literal handful of times in 14 years. I’ve always explained why she should do the thing I want her to do, and if she objects, she’s given the opportunity to state her case. If she is correct, I adopt her point on the matter. The issue I have is they want her to do something but don’t think they need to provide her a satisfactory explanation. She asked, “how does the top of my head identify me”? If a hat causes you to be less identifiable which is the explanation, it is valid to the reason for the rule how the top of her head causes her to be more identifiable, because the hat only covered the top of her head (knit cap, no brim).
Without answering her question, she is expected to comply. The cause and effect processing that produces the question is discouraged because it serves no purpose. Which is why probably 99% of students her age wouldn’t even think of the question. This is an element of conditioning to authority which is common and has a great impact on the intelligence of human beings. For efficiency, people’s thinking is reduced to doing the will of authority figures for the immediate reward or to avoid an immediate punishment. It serves no purpose to think about other elements of the result or dictate, because it has no bearing on the outcome and the child’s immediate purposes.
It begins with the parents who will find it much more efficient to their purposes to provide a reward or impose a punishment than it is to explain to their children why it is in their child’s self-interest to do or not do something. Most parents don’t encourage their children to think and in fact discourage their children from thinking by using their position of authority to render the child’s point void should they attempt to argue, the same as the teacher. Which is why children learn to direct their arguments towards the emotions of their parents rather than their intellect. Begging, crying, nagging, or some effort to create enough of a nuisance for the parent to capitulate, or cause the parent to succumb to sympathy. This is because the child knows reasoning with the parent is ineffective. Parents train their children not to think.
The discouragement of thinking is reinforced by a planet full of people who subscribe to this kind of thinking. Everyone wants people to do what they want them to do and it is much easier to use reward or punishment based on position, than it is to identify a person’s point of self interest in the act.
After parents and religion comes school, work, and a variety of situations where there is little reward for thinking. It’s no wonder that a child’s friends become the group that is the most influential and that he is most interested in, as it is the only group where his thoughts are valid.
The substance of my texts reflects as much. I wanted to reinforce my daughter’s act of thought by telling her she has a valid position. I told her to try to get them to admit it so she could have the sensations of being affirmed correct even though she is going to comply. I wanted her to know she was right but explained to her the purpose of her going to school is of greater value than wearing the hat which is why she should comply. Lastly, I wanted her to understand the teachers didn’t have bad intentions, they just didn’t know what they were doing which produces bad results and purposes.
They are bad people despite not thinking they are doing bad things, because they value things over what is true. They are self deceptive and obstruct communication which harms everyone, and they arbitrarily claim authority over others through the threat of consequence. They think they’re good people because it’s socially reinforced as the dominant human mode of operation, but their result and the purposes of these results are harmful. If you are what you do and what you do harms yourself and others (objectively speaking, whereas harm from the truth fulfils good purposes) then you are evil. As I mention, I’m not talking about this incident and I’m not talking about teachers specifically, I am talking about people, almost all of you, and to a great extent all of you.
Anyone at any point in history who asked the questions I’ve asked could have arrived at these conclusions. My highest level of academic achievement is a GED, but objectivity has led me to fundamental answers about human behavior and human dysfunction. It has given me the ability to look at the smallest detail and what it means in respect to the details around it while never losing focus of what that portion of information means to my understanding of everything else I understand. What I mean is, without the evolution of knowledge, any person could understand the concept of liberty, and the value of truth, and afterwards speculated anything they wanted to about existence and a hereafter, and humanity would have been on a track towards ideal long ago. Instead they deceived and self deceived as it served their interest materially and sensationally, and this is why we have what we have.
The reference to box makers and clock punchers refers to people who operate out of authority-based reasoning.
The teacher is motivated by the satisfaction of tasks associated with teaching as well as earning money. To fulfill these purposes, he or she must comply with and enforce school policy. Policy is enforced to fulfill the teacher’s purposes. The emphasis of efficiency in regard to those purposes causes the teacher to overlook the motivation of the policy and the efficiency of the policy itself in regard to its intended purpose. Because he or she wants to teach for the satisfaction of teaching and money, the teacher neglects thought processes associated with their actions and the policies that motivate her actions.
I am another example. Influenced by the circumstances of driving and thinking (as the latter is an effect of the former) I initially provided her an answer that demonstrated I had a higher value of what I was doing than I did of her situation. In consideration of the setting, if there was a rule, she was going to have to follow it right or wrong because the value of her education was greater than the value of wearing a hat. I thought further and answered her question correctly.
Setting is important regarding liberty. When interacting with someone in or with their property it is understood they may impose rules, and a person must either accept those rules or not interact with them in that setting. A public school is an institution that exists by the will of the public, which means the school should only impose rules that are consistent with the general rule of rules, where the imposition prevented is greater than the imposition imposed, and rules that increase the efficiency of teaching. There is no gang problem at the school which would be a valid reason why the children cannot wear hats as it compromises safety. The school claims the reason for the hat policy is identification, if so, how does the top of her head identify her? You have a policy that imposes without preventing any imposition.
Worse still the policy compromises teaching efficiency. The process of educating students is distracted by teachers having to enforce policies that do not serve a good purpose, because they impose without preventing imposition. A second aspect of efficiency is the enforcement of such policies creates a disposition within students that is not conducive to learning. The school tells the student she cannot do something, provides inadequate justification, and then expects the injustice perpetrated against her not to distract from her education?
The main point is a rule you cannot explain that is imposed through authority, conditions children to not think by voiding the results of their thoughts. The value of thought is reduced because the thoughts have no bearing on outcomes. This example is not about the hat but an example of conditioning to authority-based thinking. During our day to day lives it is everywhere, parents, teachers, clergy, bosses, etc. Some of it is necessary to ensure adequate efficiency, but much of it is not, and the consequences are apparent. (despite her issues at school she is an A student with occasional Bs.)
Another example was when she was told at recess to take her headphones off. She asked why she had to take her headphones off and the teacher responded because it’s a rule. She asked why it was rule and the teacher told her all she needed to know is it’s a rule. These are sequences people are trained to operate under: I don’t do something because it is a rule, and if I do it, there is a consequence imposed by some authority. Her mother doesn’t want me to be involved with her school. I don’t feel like it is my place because my presence has been intermittent. I was incarcerated shortly after my daughter was born and missed about the first year of her life. I was with her from about a year and a half until she was about 9. I was gone for about a year and then I was back for a few months, gone for a year with visits, and now I’ve been back for close to a year and I am intent on leaving again.
I don’t see eye to eye with her mother. Her mother, who to some degree knows better, prefers our daughter to be absorbed into the American dream. For her to become a cog in the wheel, to accept authority to improve her circumstances and reach a good balance between entertainment and servitude. For her to have the life reflected in television ads, and sitcoms, for her to be “oblivious to her existence” and the world she lives in. I just hope that her values and understanding are based on substance and not other people’s-imposed preferences, and how she chooses to apply those values and understanding, to what ends, is her choice. I only hope she doesn’t find herself in a situation where life is spent working an unfulfilling job that does little more than suffices her for the day. Her mother and I do not talk much. Our relationship is based on my willingness to help her and her willingness to help me, and how my presence is preferred by my daughter. We talk casually, just not substantively, very friendly, we just have different values.
Even though the conditioning of my child to arbitrary authority is not harmful to those ends since she recognizes it, it is harmful in how she feels when she is imposed on. Examples are not limited to these incidents. The other day when I picked her up from school, she was complaining with her friend about a student in her orchestra class. There are two cellists, her friend is one and there is another student who is the other, and she explained that the cello is important because it is part of maintaining tempo, at least this was what I understood by her explanation. The issue which contained multiple examples, reduced to the teacher enabling the student to perform poorly and not participate in the class which has a negative effect on the rest of the students. I told my daughter that her and her friend needed to bring this to the teacher’s attention. The following day she told me her attempt to bring it to the teacher’s attention ended with the teacher stating she wasn’t going to argue with a 14-year old.
For most children it doesn’t matter much, because the modus operandi of the school is the same as at home and other places. They comply without much thought because their points won’t have any bearing on the outcome so why think them? To put it another way, the objective of the mind is valued purpose, and questioning the dictates of authority figures does not further any purpose, so a mind that has been conditioned to authority operates on laws of to do, or not to do, based on immediate consequence without much consideration concerning the dictates.
Application Three: Value and Denial
I mention my daughter’s incident at school, and part of the reason is because it was that text exchange combined with other reflections on that day that led to the identification of the Seq Comp processors, but Seq Comp is more a product of denial. When people will not read what you write and will go silent in conversation without acknowledging your points, you have to understand why people are doing this in order to establish communication.
My value of the truth is greater than my value of anything, which means when I discover I am wrong about something it doesn’t impact my value to myself because my highest value is truth. Other people have a higher value of things, and when the truth shows what they thought good or true to be bad or false it lowers the value of the thing and causes them to feel bad. They avoid it or do not acknowledge true information that challenges what they want to believe.
They want to believe it because of the associations it has with other things, and there are positive feelings associated with these things, which can include people and ideas. Objects are valued for the sensations they produce and ideas they are associated with. The objects cannot produce good feelings if they are found to be false or immoral. In changing the value of an object, the truth literally takes people’s joy away. I believe the negative feeling a person experiences when exposed to challenging information is the subconscious attempting to persuade the person away from the information, because the information is going to harm their values.
Since the objective of the mind is valued purposes, a valued purpose would be to protect valued purposes. We can look at this a few different ways but they ultimately lead to the same conclusion. The feeling can be perceived as imposition as the adjustment of value may compromise objectives. Or, it is the subconscious mind protecting joy or value by imposing a negative feeling that causes the information to be avoided, or not paid attention to. Included in compromising the value of subjects is the individual himself; it lowers his self esteem. Having operated out of the same mind as other people still do, I know the solution begins with understanding the value of the truth as it relates to liberty. Another possibility is new information is creating uncertainty, and uncertainty is what fear consists of.
The cause is irrelevant to me, because 1: I know there is a prohibitive feeling that prevents people from accepting information that challenges their beliefs. 2: I know the solution is understanding the value of the truth. I don’t have recent examples of my own because it has been a very long time since I’ve tried to protect myself from information.
There are two different types of denial, conscious denial and unconscious denial. Conscious denial is when a person understands they are wrong but refuses to admit it based on some valued purpose. Nonconscious denial occurs when information is prevented from joining sequenced information concerning the subject. The information cannot be comprehended. The reason relates to their interest in the subject, where their position or understanding isn’t motivated by the truth of the subject, but ensuring the subject remains as defined for the purposes they have for the subject being what they want it to be, not as it is.
I remember what it was like to have that value arrangement, with invested positions on shaky foundations, the feelings when exposed to information that challenged my beliefs. For most people it feels bad to be wrong, so they deny, and continue in preferred error, which as explained is against their own self-interest.
Nearly every exchange is an example of this in the Youtube comment section, but I am providing the following excerpt as I try to explain it to the person, I am exchanging comments with.
1st Comment: Mitch Letterman AOC is smart, withhold your endorsement for president after you see who backs your bill.
2nd Comment: Orion Simerl There you go, instead of developing a solid understanding to make an informed civic decision, let someone else make that decision for you.
4th Comment: Orion Simerl@Mitch Letterman I misread the comment, I didn’t realize it read for her to withhold her endorsement until she sees who will support her bill. I thought you were telling people to withhold their vote for president until after they see who AOC endorses, which I was mocking, which is most of the way politics works. People like what people say and associate them with the good feeling rhetoric. They vote for that person, and people who the liked person recommend.
Most of congress is selected by industry through the investment of dollars that allows a candidate to be competitive in elections. The candidates perform political rhetoric and people associate this rhetoric with the candidate serving their interest. Sometimes grassroots campaigns can elect a few people. These people are typically passionate about causes and are great creators and performers of political material. The groups they associate with build a campaign around the individual and they are elected to office. Once a grassroots candidate gets to office, they have a job to do they are often ill qualified for.
The general public doesn’t have a sound understanding of the economic and legal structures they live in. You can present a symptom and the symptom can be understood by the public through personal experience, but they don’t understand the problem or whatever buzz word (The Just Society, A Green New Deal) solution is being proposed. People can only elect people based on positive association not on substance.
People are elected based on their ability to orate. AOC for example started her service introducing the Green New Deal, which was the subject of great controversy, but primarily because it sold well to the public. Media earns money through subscription and advertising, therefore a topic that attracts attention will be pushed and promoted until the interest decreases. What AOC created was a list of goals with no ideas for achieving those goals. Yet many activists were under the impression and activist news broadcasting stations like Democracy Now, promoted the idea that the Green New Deal was a comprehensive plan to transform the economy through green initiatives, which would lead to this utopia of prosperity. I remember children in front of Diane Feinstein saying “we need to pass the green new deal”, and activists who were saying the same thing. It shouldn’t even have been taken seriously because it was basically taking the points of some socialist party platform and writing it in a resolution intent on creating a select committee to come up with ideas to solve these problems. AOC has benefited from the celebrity the GND farce created for her. Of course, she does well to insert herself places where she can say things her base likes to hear, which is how she was elected to begin with.
Here is my comment on the summary of her bills mentioned here.
The Just Society Bills for example. Going off of the summary provided by Amy Goodman it is another example of spending public funds which will not substantially improve the lives and opportunity of the 40 percent most in need of improvement. 1: Access to full social services for formerly incarcerated people means what? Food share, health care, job training, and maybe the return to a small stipend, all of which is presently available to formerly incarcerated people in most, if not all counties in the United States. 2: Cap annual rent increases. People living on the bottom typically are not subject to substantial rent increases because they cannot afford housing of any significant cost, and when their rent is increased it is generally unsubstantial. Meaning if they have a 0 to 5% rent increase and you cap rent increases at 10%, you haven’t helped anyone. 3: Push government contractors to improve benefits doesn’t affect the lives of poor and struggling people who do not work for government contractors if that is the intended interpretation. 4: Changing the way the government tracks poverty is of little significance to anyone living in poverty but may be of some use in expressing poverty related arguments. These arguments already fall on deaf ears and are taken up by people who, as is apparent, have nothing substantive to contribute to alleviating the problem.
Yes, I understand politics. I also understand your heroes’ ideas do not significantly change the quality of life for most people. Do you?
6th Comment: Orion Simerl@Mitch Letterman LOL I’m under no illusion that you read based on your comment. LOL The explanation is to give you the opportunity to learn, and for others who may see it to learn how politics works.
8th Comment: Orion Simerl@Mitch Letterman When people’s value of things is greater than their value of what is true, they avoid and refuse to acknowledge information that compromises the value of the things. There is a negative feeling associated with confronting such information as it compromises the value of a thing, in this case a person, and a political ideology. Showing that person or ideology to be false when it is believed to be true or good compromises the value of the believer to his or herself. It lowers their self-worth. Of course, it isn’t in the interest of a person to self-deceive, as such deception compromises know how and know what. Everyone wants to do what they want to do, and so self-deception is against your own self-interest, affecting motivation, through (mistaken) value and circumstances. It is always better to confront the information. Which is why I live by truth over everything, and liberty is true.
10th Comment: Orion Simerl10 minutes ago@Mitch Letterman Let me break this down in a language you can understand, follow closely. 1: You like AOC, the position she associates herself with is consistent with what you think is good. 2: Because you value or like these ideas, and the understanding they are built on, you avoid information that could compromise that value. Value is compromised when something you thought was true is untrue, or something you thought was good is not good. 3: The reason you avoid the information is because lowering the value of these things lowers your value of you to yourself. 4: Because your truth is your identity. 5: It has a negative feeling associated with it because it compromises the value you have of yourself, it lowers your self-esteem. 6: So you avoid information or refuse to acknowledge information that challenges what you believe. 7: You did this when you asked me if I understood American politics and I provided you a functioning summary understanding of how American politics works and why your faith in AOC is misplaced.
Narcissistic Personality Disorder
I originally had a different example above. In that exchange the commenter implies I am a megalomaniac (she said you think you have a monopoly on the truth, which is a sign of megalomania), which I understand has become Narcissistic Personality Disorder. It is also a good place to insert a criticism of psychology’s methods. Psychology relies on imprecise diagnosis, and subjective causation.
Diagnosis is imprecise because features of disorders are overlapping, where behavior, thoughts, and feelings overlap with other disorders, as well as with normal behavior.
Causation is subjective because unlike a medical diagnosis where there is something physical that serves definitively as the cause of the illness, psychology relies on theories based on indirect evidence. For example, the cause of a person who has difficulty trusting people and developing relationships may be seen by psychology as a person who has a fear of abandonment caused by an event or events of abandonment. Even if this is part of the individual’s history, it does not mean the cause of these issues is the result of a fear of abandonment. There are value-based reasons as to why a person may have difficulty developing new relationships and trusting people.
Group values are the bonding element of the group, and typically the bonding element between individuals. Which isn’t to say that great discrepancies between individual’s values cannot exist, the differences are deemphasized in interaction, and a strong relationship can still exist. There must be something one values of the other, and the other values of the one. It can become difficult for an individual to develop relationships if what an individual values is rare among the population. Again, all interaction is the exchange of value for value.
A lack of trust is a value determination based on both objective and subjective evidence. It is a value determination in two respects. The first is in regard to exposure, as the impact of a person betraying trust is limited by how much risk an individual exposes himself to. The second is whether or not a person believes most people are trustworthy or if a person believes most people are not trustworthy, which is subjective based on experience, but also objective based on what is known about human behavior and the propensity of human beings to be trustworthy. It forces a person to choose whether to act intelligently or to act in avoidance of behavior that suggests a psychological issue. A lack of trust can be an intelligent choice, and not a fear that if I call you my friend you may not be a friend one day, as psychology seems to suggest is the cause in some situations.
Since the person suggested I may have a Narcissistic Personality Disorder, I viewed the criteria and applied it to myself. According to the criteria I registered a 4.5 on the scoring, with the half being a criterion which consists of two parts that have nothing to do with one another.
1: Very high self-importance (boasting and expects to be seen as superior).
This is one point I acknowledge. I have a very high sense of self-importance, but this sense of self-importance is not without objective merit. I have created 5 legislative outlines, one constitutional amendment, one outline is a market-based solution for reducing economic inequality, including increasing opportunity, the quality of opportunity, and tangibly increasing popular power within a market based legislative system. Another is a solution for homelessness in San Francisco, would have reduced the homeless population by 60 to 70%, reduced the county budget by over 100 million dollars per year which represented about 5% of the budget at the time, and eliminated the visibility of homelessness on the streets. The third is a criterion for deadly force to address the unnecessary use of deadly force by law enforcement officers, which also establishes a regionally elected body to enforce the criteria which addresses another aspect of the problem. Another is the Balance Stimulus that not only addresses economic inequality and its impact on opportunity, but in doing so will have rippling effects by solving for inequality where inequality is the root cause of so many issues. The final is an option to be considered in the Israel/Palestine conflict, that includes the consent of both parties without the need for any third-party mediation. Beyond this there are other proposals that are mentioned in brevity in the book that I haven’t created a comprehensive outline for.
In addition to these ideas, I provide objective analysis of political, economic, and social subjects, which is largely, if not wholly absent from the news market, and this absence is damaging to human beings. The market does not exist for objective content on these subjects, because the news market itself is the reinforcement bias, in that people are looking for information that proves them right, and their right, is based on their values, which are the product of value associations, many intertwined with identity. A publication exists because there is ample demand for the bias of their information, which allows the publication to either sell the publication, or sell advertising, or both. Every bias suffers from some shortcoming of the truth, whether partisan, religious, or nationalist. Even if an article is 90% consistent with the bias in the bias’s true elements, it isn’t worth the publication risking the offense of its subscribers, by appearing to be compromising the bias. Truth offends everywhere where the truth is of lower value than the value of subjects. In the absence of explanation, I understand why my articles are not published.
Moving beyond, I have discovered the basis of objective good, and I have applied it in my life as the governor of my behavior, and the measure is consistently correct in every situation. I prove it can be applied in life, and in real time even under stress. It is simple, the truth is self evident, and has existential implications as the literal nature of existence is based on human beings, the creatures on this planet, and the known universe. Understanding the existential implications has serious implications for how people think.
I have a theory of the mind that if understood has the potential to increase the intelligence of the species simply by people understanding where their thoughts come from and what values compromise self-interest. Or some will say these processors as I refer to them are not the source of thoughts, but the perceivable features of reality based on the human experience, but the mind is a reflection of the reality in which it exists. There is no other purpose for a mind that is set on an objective to compare information or to produce thoughts beyond what I’ve identified in SeqComp. These processors are a reflection of value, self-interest, and how these processors relate to that self-interest (cause and effect: possibilities and know how), morality (understanding the limits of liberty to maximize liberty), and true and false (know how). I understand why I think, feel, and do things, as well as the reasons why others do things, and I also understand why this species is failing.
When taken together, in consideration of what my ideas can accomplish, if one of these ideas were realized (CEP), or if these concepts are understood, the impact it will have on human civilization will be greater than anything that has preceded it, in the liberation of the mind and circumstances. I understand life with a clarity possessed by no other person in human history, evident by the fact that these truths are widely unknown. I feel important, and it is justifiable.
I think the second aspect of the first criterion applies to everyone in some way. People have values, those values direct attention, attention builds strength in those areas, and every person has an area where they are superior to others and reasonably expect that quality to be respected. Is it boasting if conversation is directed to the area of strength and an individual is honest and then expects his qualification to be respected? Is it boasting if a person tells a story, and the person who is being told the story, tells a story of similar content, to demonstrate the relatability of the story, also revealing an area of compatible value as thoughts, feelings, and decisions will be similar when people experience similar circumstances? The first criterion applies to me and also applies to probably every person on this planet.
2: Often imagines being extremely successful, powerful, brilliant, beautiful, or in love.
2 is another criterion which applies to me but which I also believe can be universally applied. Who has desire that isn’t definable in the extreme that doesn’t fall in line with at least one of those categories?
Prevalent in a society built on varying conceptions of the word love which is heavily impressed on the population, where most people’s income cannot comfortably sustain an individual (individual median income $31,000 per year), is being in love in the extreme. Love has a functioning definition of what is considered a true state of love, and love has varying subjective definitions applied by the population. Love objectively is the exchange of valued behavior for valued behavior, where an attachment forms based on the satisfaction of that behavior. Most people have ideas of love impressed on them. People seek to share the ideas they associate with love with another person who either plays a role, is expected to play a role, or is molded into the role the person wants the other person to play in their idea of love. This idea of love is perceived as being central to their happiness and thus a primary subject of desire. In some situations, probably many situations, an individual does not exhibit the behavior desired by the other person, but the person’s belief that they will, fuels their feelings of love because the individual does in idea.
As for myself, I imagine being extremely successful because I believe the merit of my ideas warrants extreme success. Power is desired only in as much as is required to fulfil my purposes, but it isn’t a desire for power over people so I’m unable to know if that subdivision of the criterion is applicable.
Extremely brilliant? Lying for the appearance of humility is dishonesty, so not only do I imagine it, I understand it, brilliant compared to the general population, not innately, but as the product of my values, and extremely, because not compared to the general population only, but compared to well educated, and brilliant people.
I don’t imagine myself being beautiful, and entertain no false notions about my beauty, I presume I am about average attractiveness physically, which causes me to believe I’m probably slightly below average attractiveness based on a non-perceivable bias towards my own features. In experience there is nothing to suggest I possess an above average appearance based on interaction which may be somewhat reflective of an unapproachable image, and other possibly intimidating characteristics. My tinder matches and pof attention is also non-indicative. In fact I received a message on POF which is a dating app that said I didn’t look good enough to have the profile I had (written content). The timing of the message was perfect as it was received while I was fulfilling the purposes of the profile.
Do I imagine being extremely in love? Any fantasies I entertain of love are more about the possibility of a relationship that can liberate me from my circumstances, but I do not imagine myself being extremely in love. Based on my understanding of what love is, what love is to most people, and my understanding of myself it is almost precluded as a possibility in my life. Not that it isn’t conceivable based on some very unique scenarios, but it isn’t something I seek or give much consideration.
2 applies to me in perceived brilliance and ceiling for success, bringing my total to 2 points, but I think 2 applies to everyone.
3: Believes they are special and unique. Thinks they should only be around high-class people and institutions.
Does it mean believe they are special and unique, or is it, thinks they should only be around high-class people and institutions? The two are not mutually inclusive. In the special self-esteem climate we live in, it would be difficult to find a person who recognizes they are not special and unique even though most people are not. I believe I am special and unique based largely on my values, understanding, and abilities which are largely absent from the population, which means I am special and unique. Once again, I don’t believe it, I understand it to be true.
I don’t think I should only be around high-class people and institutions, and in fact associate with people who are not high class people. Not only do I associate with people who are not high class, they tend to be my preferred company. The psychologist would probably assert that this is due to the next criterion, needs to be admired, so I seek out relationships with people who I feel are beneath me. Except that it is a product of common values and more relatable experience. Where around low-class people, I don’t have to try to incorporate tact in deploying opinions or omit experience that may scare and lead to inaccurate conclusions about me from higher class people who are insulated from what their systemic benefit and consent produces.
The third point was my half, as I understand myself to be special and unique, but I don’t think I should only be around high-class people and institutions. If I’m seeking high class relationships, in terms of mean it is to attract means for for causes, and if it is education, it is because some of my material requires a certain level of education to be understood, and even then bias obstructs.
4: Needs to be admired.
I don’t have a need to be admired, and I am often indifferent to admiration and praise which I’m sure is a trait of a number of other disorders but is actually a product of not requiring affirmation based on the certainty of my own judgements of myself, and self-adoration. I do need acknowledgement, meaning at least an explanation of things which are not agreed, which has been absent in my life for the last 5 years.
4 does not apply.
5: Thinks they should be treated better than other people or others should do what they want.
This does not apply to me, I do not expect to be treated better than anyone else, I don’t think people should do what I want, I recognize such a desire as imposition. Even as a person in a position of authority I wasn’t imposing, generally willing to let people working for me do what they wanted to do so long as it didn’t compromise their performance, and choosing their own strategy to complete their assigned task so long as it accomplished the desired purposes.
Yet I could see how the first part could be circumstantial and not a negative or undesirable trait. In this, a person may feel they are entitled to better treatment based on the disadvantages they have faced and continue to face. It is neither negative, nor is it a trait that is consistent with the general idea of the disorder if it is based on this reasoning. Primarily because disadvantaged circumstances exist by the consent of the whole, therefore better treatment for disadvantaged people can be seen as an anticipated act of balance, and this can be true to an individual without them being able to articulate it. This justification is based on any form of disadvantage as is evident by people with physical handicaps, but circumstantial handicaps should not be excluded from justifications for the expectation of better treatment than others. It doesn’t apply to me as I don’t think I should be treated better than others, although I think most people’s treatment of everyone should be better in some ways.
The second trait: you think others should do what you want is a trait of a disorder. It is contrary to self-interest and is an imposition. It is something that is objectively wrong in the general context.
6: Exploits people.
6 does not apply to me. Recently I was in a difficult situation where I was about 800 miles from home with enough gas and money to make it about 200 miles. It was extremely difficult to ask for help and I considered the reasons. One reason is I recognize how most of the people I know are of limited means. I recognize my need, and although the resources may be needed more by me than to them, I feel I’m imposing on them. This is in acknowledgement that 1: I will pay them back, and 2: they gain the feeling associated with helping someone and removing them from an uncomfortable situation. Indirectly my refusal to ask or accept help as partial help was offered, is kind of imposing on their desire to feel good by helping me, in a situation where everyone’s interest is served. I recognized it as being an unintelligent decision. The second part of it is the effect it has on the value of myself, because I could have endured, and I value my self-reliance. Eventually I called friends who I knew would help me, and who attached minimal debt to the act.
I suppose the third aspect although not a major point is the implied debt beyond the monetary value to the act, where anytime someone does something for you, even though there is the exchange of the need for help for the feeling associated with meeting a need for help, I still recognize additional debt based on a person freely choosing to help another person. This is to say not only am I non-exploitative, for the reasons I’ve mentioned, but I am non-exploitative to an extreme degree which I’m guessing is probably a trait that falls into the category of another disorder. It isn’t because I don’t think I am deserving of help, I definitely do, but it cannot be from a source where I perceive the act to be significantly imposing on their means.
7: Does not have empathy.
The change of the trajectory of my life, from a drug dealer with recording artist ambitions, to a person who sought to understand the causes of himself, of people, and the state of the world was fueled and directed by a great deal of empathy. When every man you see could be you, every child your daughter, every woman the mother of your daughter, and injustice, and needless suffering exist popularly, you take on their sadness and imagine their pain as if it was your own, and it becomes your own, sometimes amplified in the acknowledgement of your advantage relative to these people. Then you learn the causes, and that empathy is pooled like a flammable liquid, ignited by the flames of knowing the circumstances that exist, do not exist by accident, incompetence, necessity, or mismanagement, but exist because they are beneficial to a small number of people who benefit greatly from this organization of society. Not a small number as in some conspiratorial cabal, but a small number relative to the entire population where the actions and benefits are measured, and exist in plain sight among a blind population, inclusive of educated people. That feeling is a beautiful feeling, empowering, and you decide you are not going to allow these people who you value as yourself, to continue to be needlessly harmed and imposed upon.
The greatest difference between myself and the man who watches his daughter die from being bombed is I was born to the parents I was born to, in the place where I was born, and he was born to his parents and in the place where he was born. The same difference applied to the man who watches his daughter die in the arms of her mother of a curable disease, because the opportunity to acquire the means to purchase the medicine does not exist for that family, or because sanctions prevent the import or the means to import medicine. There are many places where that difference applies, and there are other places, especially domestically, where even the horrible place I find myself is advantaged to some based-on luck. Luck isn’t a superstition, it is the word I use to describe when circumstances outside of your control aid in contributing to a positive outcome.
The purity of my intent has opened intellectual doors. A better understanding of causes, and unsuccessful efforts to proliferate ideas reduces the frequency with which I experience feelings of empathy, which isn’t to say it is altogether absent. Feelings manifested as I recalled the setting and the concepts I associate with empathy, but it manifests much less frequently. Empathy has become less frequent due to increased understanding, mainly understanding that this is what people have chosen, but my behavior is unchanged by the absence of it.
The following story is an excerpt from a broader point which was edited out of this article.
On my way back from the gas station I saw a man walking down the street who appeared homeless or not very well to do. His appearance was dirty and his hair was disheveled. I said, “what’s up” to him, he said “what’s up” and continued walking. He stopped, turned around and asked if I had $1.05? I told him I could get him most of the way there and thought I had about $.85. I reached into my pocket and gave him what probably amounted to more than $1.
Most of what an individual is, is the sum of impressions left on them over a lifetime of experiences. Whatever advantages one possesses over any other are still a product of the systems: political, economic, and social, that an individual was either born into or produced by a system he benefits from. This is to say the advantages they enjoy come from systems that create disadvantages for others, and so they bear responsibility for those systemic impositions.
Why did I give the man a $1? 1st I recognize that my advantage comparative to him is largely the result of the aforementioned, so I’m seeing him on equal terms. The intended purpose is to experience the sensation of bringing him closer to liberation from some desire.
Why does it make me feel good? I have been in situations of desperate need and desire and I know how good it feels to be helped in those situations. I usually offer people who ask for money a cigarette as well, because a cigarette when you smoke and haven’t had one in a while is a beautiful thing, but on this occasion I didn’t offer. I feel good 1: because I can vicariously share in my idea of what he experiences by the act, and I get the feeling 2: because the idea of progress towards a liberated desire feels good, and 3: fulfillment of responsibility for the advantages seeded to me through the order in place is justice which is an idea that contributes to the good feeling. The motivation is a product of desire in relation to circumstances, with the desire itself being a feeling that exceeds the feeling that could be achieved through the substance sacrificed. Meaning I couldn’t spend that dollar anywhere else to get a feeling that exceeds the feeling I received from giving that dollar to that person.
I’m not being nice, selfless, kind, or loving, I’m taking advantage of an opportunity to feel good at a great value. I’m serving my self-interest. I’m not thinking about it in these terms as I make the decision, that is just part of the underlying basis for making the decision, the laws in my mind which contribute to the innate feeling of feeling good for helping.
Not all people have these feelings, likely because they’ve never had a desperate need, or haven’t been helped when in need, or don’t understand the circumstances that contribute to someone being in need. For some people the idea isn’t present, and even the parts of the process that are innate no longer function due to dormancy from abstinence from the acts. The point is, not everyone feels good for helping. There are other self-interested motivating factors for the appearance of selfless acts. Charity has popular value, so some feel good based on the perceived respect of their peers that is gained through a charitable act. Other motivation is indebting someone to you or being charitable to enrich your experience in an act by providing other people the means to participate in it with you.
The purpose of this story is to demonstrate that behavior is unchanged in the absence of empathy, using an act that was once motivated by feelings stoked by thoughts related to empathy, to show that my behavior is the same but based on the value of the feelings gained by the act, (which is usually not conscious, where I’m not thinking about I’m going to give this to feel that, but is the subconscious basis for the behavior) and understanding the righteousness or maybe better stated the rightness of the act. This isn’t applicable only to this kind of act but acts and purposes that used to be driven by empathy are driven by understanding their application to serving my self-interest. It isn’t embellished with empathy, where I’m seeing someone and imagining what they are going through, imagining what they are feeling which is something that used to be conscious. Instead, I am inclined to help because subconsciously I know it will feel good to make a small contribution. I’m cool and sociable with people because we’re on equal terms, and I’m inclined to help out if the need doesn’t impose too deeply on my means, time, or energy, and immediately afterward I feel good for having done it. I can look back and know why I did it, but at the moment in these casual interactions, I’m not thinking about why I’m making the decision, because I’m engaged in the interaction.
8: Is envious of other people or think people are envious of him or her.
Envy is the quality of feeling more deserving of what someone else has than they are of it. It is the value of yourself versus the value of someone else, and the value of what they have versus the value of what you have. I don’t think there is a single person on this planet who has not been envious of someone, and as a result, someone has probably been envious of everyone at some point and possibly perceived it, either through overt or suggestive evidence. This means it is a general quality, a part of innate processing to determine value through comparative means to experience envy, and therefore there is an objective basis for people to feel like they are envied. What this question really reveals is how honest people are with themselves, or how honest they are in their answers to the questions. What’s worse is this question is used to assign a personality disorder diagnosis that can lead to the inference about other qualities about this person, and it isn’t a question anyone can honestly answer no to. It’s like if breathing air was a qualification and after the client tells the clinician he breathes air, he has a check on the NPD list.
This applies to me in the former, but not so much in the latter. I see people whose character and ideas are not worth a shred of merit in contrast to my own, so naturally, I am envious of the resources they receive, including the attention they receive because I believe I am more deserving, and my ideas are more meritorious.
8 applies to me, but as 1 and 3, applies to all honest people.
9: Is arrogant.
This is a derivative of the 1st criterion “Very high self-importance, boasting and expects to be seen as superior”. It is nearly taking the definition of the word arrogance and using it as the first criterion, and then using the word arrogance for the 9th.
I don’t think I am arrogant although I think my behavior can at times produce the appearance of arrogance. The definition of the word is having an exaggerated sense of one’s self-importance or abilities. As explained, which becomes more apparent under additional scrutiny, my sense of self-importance and abilities is fairly accurate. The appearance of arrogance may be perceived in the confidence I act with based on what I understand and how I experience reality.
Any person with 5 of these traits is considered as having a Narcissistic Personality Disorder. I’m at 4.5 or 5 depending on the emphasis of the qualification in the second part of the third criterion which has nothing to do with the first part. Yet even if we call it 5 how can it be classified as a disorder when the explanations for these thoughts, feelings, and behavior demonstrates good motivation, in that it is honest and unimposing? Honest people are predisposed to having a Narcissistic Personality Disorder, as 1 and 3 should apply to everyone, 8 definitely applies to everyone according to SeqComp and the functioning definition of the word, and 1 and 9 are essentially the same criterion.
I do not have the general description of a cluster B disorder. Individuals with this Cluster B Personality Disorder have an excessive sense of how important they are. They demand and expect to be admired and praised by others and are limited in their capacity to appreciate others’ perspectives.
First the qualification of excessive causes the diagnosis to be subjective, based on the individual’s standard of excessive or the popular application of the word, and popularity does not make right and history is filled with examples. Based on the unchallenged perceived merits of myself, my sense of how important I am is not subjective. I don’t demand to be admired or praised, and I am generally indifferent to it. I do have a limited capacity to appreciate other perspectives, largely because I understand and can demonstrate other’s perspectives to be incorrect in principle or based on incorrect or short sequenced information.
I have a borderline personality disorder with negative connotations based on a criteria where many points are universally applicable, and in line with reasoning that is unimposing and in line with human self-interest. This is one disorder, and if I was inclined to, I’m sure there are plenty of these disorders with even more arbitrary and incorrect criteria. Incorrect based on the traits not being a disorder in the sense that they demonstrate a sound understanding of reality, human interest, an individual’s true comparative value, and the genuine relationship with the world in which they exist.
I am aware that a clinical psychologist wouldn’t provide a client with the Narcissistic Personality Disorder checklist and ask the person to self-diagnose as I have done. Typically, the clinician would ask questions about experiences related to the reason the client was seeing the psychologist and would compare the criteria to the clients experiences.
Behavior, thoughts, and feelings are not static. Even the general personality types don’t have much meaning attached to them. It’s something akin to astrology. Behavior and the style or approach to how you interact is based on value, and values are influenced by mood and setting.
Mood is understood as the cycle of thoughts, perception, and feelings. How you perceive your environment, the feelings produced by the elements in it, your thoughts, which cause your feelings, and your feelings influence your thoughts, and perception, until the cycle is interrupted by a thought or interaction with the environment. Mood, thoughts, feelings, and consequently behavior is also influenced by feelings caused by the environment that we are not even aware of, through impressed stereotypes and biases. As I mentioned, experiences with familiar subjects leaves impressions that will cause us to feel things based on the expectation of what things or people represent based on cumulative impressions. Consciously we are unbiased, but subconsciously, these impressions influence our feelings which influences our thinking. Other facts that influence behavior are the stakes involved, if there are people, the importance of being liked by these people which affects value, if there is some material interest at stake and so on and so forth.
Behavior changes based on setting. How you behave is as much about you as it is about your setting. In answering a behavior survey where your answers determine your personality type or types, is subjective, and is based on the individual’s perception of him or herself or what he or she values, but also what society values. When you’re asked about typical behavior or style of behaving, you have your value of what you perceive that behavior to be and be a part of. If you value the behavior, you may think of times when you exhibited such behavior, if you do not, you may have already suppressed memories of the behavior, rationalized it as something else, or it will be deemphasized in recollection. Human behavior is much more dynamic than some areas of psychology would like to reduce it to, and behavior-based categorization says more about how a person wants to behave and less about how a person actually behaves.
Any categorization of behavior does not define the innate qualities or propensity of the individual based on the individual’s direct values. It is merely an observation of how an individual tends to respond to certain circumstances, where tendencies could be different based on different circumstances. Consider the adage money changes people which typically comes from people who see others come into money. Consider the response from people who come into money: money doesn’t change people, money causes people to become more of what they already are. Obviously, money is the key driver of opportunity, so the individual’s opportunities change, and now tendencies change, maybe not a disorder that wasn’t a disorder, but something small as in his introversion is now extroversion. A more important aspect of money, how it relates to the adages above is it changes the dynamic of relationships and interaction. An individual with money no longer needs to adjust their behavior to conform to the values of others because of some interest or opportunity provided by other people. There are many other small things that cumulatively may have great impacts on an individual’s behavior when their circumstances change. Image and status improvements resulting from money may reduce insecurity and anxiety, improve self-image, all of which will change how an individual feels and will impact his behavior and tendencies.
The Mongol Analogy
Clinical psychology is mainly tasked with changing the way an individual perceives their environment to maximize opportunities for good feelings. How a psychologist approaches a client’s dissatisfaction depends on the environment. For example, a psychologist in the United States is going to guide an individual down a path that creates opportunities for positive stimulation or avoiding negative stimulation. It is a process of persuading a person to adopt the dominant values of the society. If there were clinical psychologists like the ones that exist today seeing people in a society like the Mongols, their research would do the same thing there then, as it does here now, but therapy would not cause Mongols to adopt the values and behavior of US citizens.
A Mongol visits a Mongol psychologist because he’s having problems at work that are affecting his life in other areas. He likes riding his horse, killing his enemies, and plundering, but he doesn’t like raping, and it is affecting him socially. The other Mongols notice he doesn’t rape women who resist, and they joke and make fun of him because of it. The clinician’s first rule is the environment is static, her client can only control what he thinks, what he feels, and what he does. The issue is he doesn’t like raping, but rape is a valued act in the Mongol society, meaning he either has to figure out why he doesn’t like raping so he can rape and lead a normal life, or he has to figure out how to be less sensitive about the teasing.
If Mongol psychology was 140 years old the clinician may have a big book of disorders. Mongols who don’t rape are sensitive to criticism, less ambitious for conquest, have an aversion to torture, and who are envious of others suffer from a disorder identified in the book. Research has shown that Mongols who suffer from this disorder tended to have good relationships with their mothers as children, had difficulties developing relationships with males, had female friends, cared for animals, lacked a strong male role model, and Mongol psychology reasons that these experiences cause the problems later in life that represent this disorder, because the individual develops empathy elevating the value of others too near to himself.
The Mongol psychologist will probably begin asking questions about the Mongol’s life, can he tell her about any other times where he was teased or criticized besides incidents where he was teased about not raping? How does he feel about conquest and where does he see himself in 5 years in the ranks of the Mongol forces? Does he take part in torturing? Can he remember any incidents where he felt he was more deserving of what someone else had? If there is a pattern of at least 3 of these behaviors he qualifies as having this disorder.
Next the psychologist will ask questions about his childhood to establish the relationship factors associated with the disorder. If these relationships are present in his past there is probably already a wealth of research related to strategies for treating the disorders, points of reasoning the clinician can guide the Mongol to understand, by asking questions, which have been proven in most people suffering from the disorder to correct it.
In those who therapy isn’t effective for, there are exercises. One exercise that has proven effective for some Mongols suffering from this disorder, at least to correct the symptom of not enjoying the act of raping is to knock the victim unconscious first. Since this is the only symptom affecting this Mongol’s quality of life, it makes sense to take a symptomatic approach if therapy has failed. If knocking his victim unconscious doesn’t help him feel better about raping, the psychologist may refer him to a psychiatrist for medication. The psychiatrist may prescribe him medication to increase his libido which has proven to enable people who don’t like to rape, to rape.
Maybe the medication works, and the Mongol is now raping twice as many people as his fellow Mongols. In some cases, maybe the therapy combined with the experiences with the mediation addresses the disorder as he now has positive experiences that reinforce the reasoning gained through therapy. In others, the Mongol may discontinue medication and the symptoms may return.
If the symptoms return the psychologist has to change her approach, either some experimental therapy to treat the disorder, or causing the Mongol to become indifferent to the criticism of other Mongols because he doesn’t like the same things they like, like raping. If the Mongol cannot find peace in his aversion to rape and the social consequences, the psychologist will likely help the Mongol understand his values more thoroughly to consider a change of profession. Maybe he will become a messenger or something.
The point is, psychology is not studying the human mind, clinical psychology is studying how well the values and organization of society is accepted by the general population. In the previous analogy, why would not raping be viewed as a symptom of a disorder? Because people do what feels good to them and avoid what doesn’t feel good to them. Most Mongol men like raping, meaning for Mongols, rape is a behavior that makes human beings feel good. Therefore, if it causes a small percentage of the population to not feel good, this is a disorder.
Now imagine the whole world is Mongols, or the Mongols and competing nations and empires who possess the same values. How does psychology ever measure anything objective about human thoughts, feelings, and behavior? Clinical psychology in the United States is the same thing. It’s ultimately an effort to make you more like most of your neighbors and most of your co-workers who have better internalized the instilled values of the national indoctrination. Training you to feel better about your own life by causing you to like what most people like, which will create more opportunities socially, increase the quality of the opportunities through common values, as well allow you to find more pleasure in your day to day life as the organization of society is reflective of popular values; meaning things the individual used to find displeasure in, he may begin to find pleasure in.
To return to the Mongol analogy one more time, say this Mongol didn’t like to rape people because he understood it to be morally wrong, that it was against human interest to rape. If this Mongol understood the creation existed in liberty, and that creatures could be free so long as they weren’t imposed on physically and circumstantially; that human interaction between groups could be constructive instead of destructive, and through science, production, and opportunity, all people could have a better quality of life. Perhaps the Mongol had detailed plans for transforming something made bearable through the manipulation of values, into something where people had more opportunity, more means, and more time to be free, allowing for a greater diversity of value to exist without compromising an individual’s quality of life. A world where the interests of all people were represented in deciding matters of the state, and where all people had opportunities to participate in major decisions of production and had a stake in the prosperity of their economies. A world where truth was valued over conditioned values, allowing for meaningful communication to take place between groups and individuals, and ushering in an age of objectivity that will have a profound impact on human intelligence. Ideas for all that and more.
What would the population think of this Mongol? What’s wrong with him? The Mongol psychologist would say he suffers from a disorder brought on by his upbringing that causes him not to value what people value. Because he can’t come to terms with this, he seeks to change the world to accommodate his disorder. The explanation would be much more lengthy, but the point is, this Mongol would be a pariah among the population, and the population could be led to believe by pseudo-scientific research that he suffered from a disorder, because the research is not the measure of a disorder of the mind, but the failure of the individual’s values to be socially molded. To reiterate, clinical psychology is largely the measure of how well inherited values take root.
Application 4: Sequencing and Comparison and Psychology
My understanding of human thoughts, feelings, and behavior is the product of needing to know the causes of my own thoughts, feelings, and behavior, and the causes of the thoughts, feelings, and behavior of others for purposes related to ambition in other areas.
I know why I think what I think, feel what I feel, why I make the decisions I make, and behave how I behave. In my limited exposure to psychology’s efforts to explain these things, psychology relies on a lot of indirect evidence (behavior), for which it supplies subjective explanation. The academic incentive to create new conditions based on symptom clusters does more to reduce the understanding of the human mind than it does to enhance it. I also see the results through people who have used the services of a therapist and I see the inconsistencies in their understanding that would be corrected through understanding Seq Comp. For these I have a negative opinion of the field.
Therapy generally creates a psychological game of whack a mole, where the faith-based healing of a patient’s undesirable feelings, thoughts, or behavior, inevitably leads to other undesirables that need to be addressed. What is meant by faith-based healing is psychology has to be bought into, where the individual believes the causation and conclusions he or she is being led to or supplied by the therapist. In believing you understand why you feel a certain way or behave a certain way it may lead to the ability to correct certain behavior or undesirable sequences of thought, but it may also lead to difficulties in other areas because of how it affects your truth, which affects how you think.
My experience in understanding the causes of thought, feeling, and behavior, and seeing the results produced by psychology is evidence of the deficiency in its application. Much of this is probably also related to the varying quality of practitioners. I imagine there are psychologists who upon meeting a client spend sessions identifying thoughts, feelings, and behavior, and then apply a diagnosis based on the grouping. Then the psychologist develops a counseling plan based on their experience with other people who they have diagnosed who have responded well to the treatment. If the client doesn’t respond well to the therapy, the psychologist will consult other psychologists’ cases and apply their treatment methods. If this fails, the psychologist will reevaluate the diagnosis and see what other diagnosis is applicable to the grouping of thoughts, feelings and behavior, and repeat the process. If they’re lucky, they may find a grouping that is slightly distinct in diagnosis and treatment from similar diagnosis, they can identify something new and conduct biased research to confirm their new discovery. There is a career incentive for finding disorders.
Much of psychology in application seems to be the imposing of preference. I was looking up the application of normal in psychology, mainly to critique that normal cannot be used as an objective comparison, since normal is the product of social values created from the imposition of subjective preferences inherited from previous generations. Then I figured for an introductory theory article it doesn’t make much sense to continue critiquing the subject generally. What I did find was an article that describes baseline in the measure of behavior, and I felt compelled to include a few thoughts on the article because it represents a major problem I have with psychology. (1) Obviously, I don’t have a problem with establishing a baseline to measure the effectiveness of behavior modification tactics, what I have a problem with is the tactics suggested in the article.
1: Very Well Mind, 6/7/2019, “How a Baseline Measurement of Behavior Helps Behavioral Intervention”, Ann Logsdon. https://www.verywellmind.com/baseline-what-is-a-baseline-2161687
The example provided was a child with ADHD who blurted out the answers in class. This was hypothetical not an actual case. The article explains the teacher may try to positively reinforce the behavior, but if positive reinforcement didn’t work then the teacher would negatively persuade the action through some consequence. Which is the most disgusting, primitive, and detrimental means to achieving a behavioral modification. It reminds me of what I read years ago by John Dewey, In Democracy and Education, where students are trained like horses instead of educated like human beings. If I remember correctly this was in the context of a student understanding why they were learning something, how the information was in their self-interest as opposed to learning based on consequence. (My comprehension skills were underdeveloped when I read the book. I didn’t understand much of it but did retain some points made based on their context-less merit)
It is an exact parallel to this approach to behavior modification. You are associating the sensation of reinforcement or consequence with behavior and the child is making decisions based on understanding the consequence, not his inherent self interest or an intelligent understanding of why he should exhibit the desired behavior. Perhaps attempts are made to explain the general interest in the desired behavior, how it relates to his education, the efficiency of teaching, how it is disruptive, and how such conduct is not beneficial to him in other social settings. But you still haven’t activated any understanding in how the behavior relates to his self-interest based on his value of subjects. This is generally the understanding of the world we live in, where conscious decisions are hardly conscious decisions, decisions are made based on associative value by a species that has conditioned itself not to think. It is the manipulation of the mind through emotions to modify behavior and such tactics discourage thinking.
What would I do if I were a psychologist tasked with modifying the behavior of the child in the article? I’d teach the child how he processes information through sequencing and comparison. In establishing universal interest, the value that produced the behavior would eventually be checked by his moral value comparison in consideration of his own interest, and he would understand what caused him to behave this way.
I recently saw a news headline reporting that research found up to 70% of people’s thoughts were negative. I didn’t read the article or the source study, but if true it made sense because negative thoughts relate to the uncertainty of outcomes. Naturally, the mind is concerned with reconciling this uncertainty, which includes thoughts concerning what an individual can do to ensure a greater degree of certainty of a desired outcome, and also how an individual will proceed if the undesired outcome occurs. At the time I saw the headline I was engaged in other matters, but later I googled the statistic to become more familiar with the research and found this article in Psychology Today, (2) and I am using the article as a subject of SeqComp analysis.
2: Psychology Today, 10/10/2013, “How Negative is Your Mental Chatter”, Raj Raghunathan. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/sapient-nature/201310/how-negative-is-your-mental-chatter
The author begins by mentioning how positivity bias influences people’s perception regarding comparative judgements. Positivity bias is set up to contrast the negative thought findings of his survey, and goes into different aspects of positivity bias: “people think that they are kinder, more trustworthy, and nobler than their peers, a phenomenon known as the “holier than thou” effect.” Through SeqComp we understand what appears to be a biased judgement producing the “holier than thou effect”, is more likely a legitimate contrast of value. The conduct of the individual should reflect his or her values of kind conduct which is unlikely to be identical to others. Therefore, the individual thinks his conduct is kinder than others because his behavior reflects his understanding of kindness, and other people’s behavior reflects their understanding of kindness and the two are not the same. The same can be said of thinking one is nobler than his peers, he has a subjective definition of what is noble, and his application is more consistent with his understanding of what constitutes noble conduct than his peers who have a different understanding of nobility.
The illusion of control is a product of false sequencing that is accepted as true and should be expected from a species whose understanding of existence is acceptably rooted in superstitions that contradict not only the reality they exist in, but also basic cause and effect relationships. This is generally acceptable, and because it is normal, it is likely viewed by psychology as an innate psychological need related to ideas of death and morality. Of course, when I say superstitions, I am primarily referring to religion but other superstitions as well. Understanding SeqComp provides people with the basic tools to improve their sequencing habits, simplify and anchor their moral code, as well as adjust their values to restore objectivity to their standard of true and false. Which reduces and eventually eliminates an individual’s belief in superstitions and reduces the prevalence of the illusion of control.
He states the findings of the survey: 70% of thoughts recorded by participants over a two-week period were negative. He inserts negativity dominance and describes the inconsistency between the positivity bias and the tendency of people to have negative thoughts concerning themselves and their outlook. The positivity bias is an obvious value choice because thoughts influence feelings, so there is inherent value in focusing on positive details. As I mentioned previously negative thoughts related to subjects of desire and the uncertainty surrounding them. Negative thoughts have value in consideration of fulfilling purposes. One is a product of how they see themselves and reality for the inherent value of accentuating the positive, and negative thoughts function to facilitate the fulfillment of desire. The interpretation of the results are incorrect because even if 70% of their recorded thoughts are negative, thinking is constantly taking place and the findings cannot be extrapolated because thought is taking place during interaction, and much these are casual positive thoughts that are unlikely to be remembered or seem significant. Negative thoughts are more pronounced in memory because they represent uncertainty associated with some interest that is ongoing and requires attention. Whereas positive thoughts come and go more quickly producing in the moment sensations.
The article encourages reader participation to record their thoughts for at least two weeks and instructs them not to alter their negative thoughts by steering them in a positive direction. Whether or not this was included in the instructions provided to the business students the study refers to is not known, as the only details concerning the instruction aspect of the methodology was they were instructed to be “brutally honest”. If instructed to deviate from their normal thinking habits in recording their thoughts this obviously compromises the findings.
If the study was published the citation wasn’t provided, but the 70% figure is not reliable based on a lack of diversity in the sample, as well as the small portion of thoughts actually recorded compared to the amount of thinking that occurs throughout a day. This is not a serious study. The sample consisted of business students which probably predisposes them to similar habits based on similar interests, a product of similar values, and other similarities in thought based on similar lifestyles centered around the same institution. Although not a serious study, the average person who stumbled across the article would probably leave having accepted that 70% of people’s thoughts were negative.
The researcher has much of the same understanding I do regarding the reasons for negative thoughts. The three main categories of negative thoughts were love, inferiority, and control. He ascribes the causes of inferiority to the natural human inclination to compare, or determine value, love as a subject imposed by society, and control with “the desire to arrange the world according to our preferences”. I generally agree with his assessment except for control, where it may be less about imposing preference and more about control regarding the expression of liberty and fulfilling desire.
These source categories of negative thoughts are a product of desire: superiority, love, and control, he refers to them as people’s perceived means to happiness, and believes these desires undermine happiness. I don’t see the correlation between feelings of inferiority and a desire to be superior to people. Feelings of inferiority are a product of assigning value which occurs for many applications and cannot be exclusively assigned to a desire to be superior to others. Determining proficiency relates to comparative skill. For example, comedian Joey Diaz told a story that when he was a young comic, he saw Doug Stanhope perform and he wanted to quit comedy because comparatively, he didn’t think his skills possessed enough value for comedy to be a worthwhile pursuit. (3) If his negative thoughts were included in this exercise, they would be labeled as inferiority and contribute to the conclusion that people who have thoughts of inferiority want to be superior to other people. These feelings of inferiority were not caused by his desire to be superior to Stanhope, they were caused by his desire to be adequate in comedy.
3: Youtube 1/17/2017 “Joey Diaz and Ralphie May Tell Doug Stanhope Stories” 3:18 to 3:35 “That time I saw him in June of 96 it threw me off, it threw me fucking off. I didn’t go back on stage for 2 or 3 fucking days. It made me think about do I want to keep on doing comedy or do I want to get a day job because I don’t know if I can be that good”.
Universal interest is desire, meaning whether an individual exercises his liberty to the point where it doesn’t interfere with others, or past that point, the ability to control is a means to happiness. Expressed as the fact 1: all people want to do what they want to do at all times, 2: no person who can do what they want to do is unhappy, 3: any person who cannot do what they want to do is not as happy as they would otherwise be. 4: control over circumstances facilitates the individual to do. The ability to control doesn’t undermine happiness because happiness requires the ability to do as one pleases and exercise control within his circumstances, which does not necessarily mean control of others, but exchanging with others where people are required for something he wants to do.
I agree the pursuit of love does undermine happiness, as most of the pursuit of a partner relates to values associated with an idea of happiness, with the actual value of a potential partner undefined in respect to utility for liberty.
Conflicts of Values and Happiness
While psychologists are sought out for a variety of behavior disorders, their services are probably most commonly retained privately for general dissatisfaction, or people who are not happy. Happiness does not exist. There are feelings people associate with being happy, and these feelings are associated with subjects, but happiness is not something one achieves or possesses. Happiness as a mood is the absence of imposition. Obviously, feelings can be achieved through experience with subjects that produce feelings defined as happy, but achievement refers to a state of happiness where a person is always happy.
Happiness is an idea that consists of objects of value. Some of these objects have no inherent value to the individual, and many of these subjects derive their value from the value of other subjects or the value of the idea they exist in. For example,
A child sees a commercial which consists of a setting with children playing exhibiting feelings of happiness that center around the toy. The toy’s value is associated with the perceived happiness of the participants in the setting, while the inherent value of the toy, the utility in how it functions, and the anticipated feelings produced through interaction with it go unconsidered. The toy of course becomes an object of desire and ultimately becomes an item associated with the child’s happiness. I will elaborate after providing examples.
When I was a child, I remember there was a toy called the Slime Pit used with He-Man action figures. So great was my value of the toy that when a large present was shown to me near Christmas and I was asked what I hoped it contained, I said 100 Slime Pits as there was no thing I desired more. I don’t remember if I received it for Christmas, but eventually I either owned one or had an opportunity to interact with one, and the experience was one of extreme disappointment. If I remember it correctly, the toy consisted of a bucket or a trough and a mechanism where the trough could be turned to drop the slime on an action figure. The slime itself had more utility in play than did the toy. The commercial however, consisted of a narrative, a child or children playing with action figures, probably voices of action figure characters or the children speaking the dialogue, and associated a sense of fun with the toy based on the setting that was not inherent to the effects produced by its design. For months as a child my greatest object of desire was an object that I didn’t value.
Understanding this, my daughter wanted a toy when she was between 7 and 9. The toy was about a softball sized metal ball encased in hard plastic. The commercial showed children and possibly adults rolling the ball around their body, there was probably music, a story, and the participants demonstrated the appearance of happy feelings interacting with the ball.
You cannot pick up the ball and perform the tricks in the commercial. A person has to dedicate time to learning the tricks which ultimately depends on the value of interacting with the ball. Rolling a ball around on yourself is not an activity that is going to produce much pleasure for most people. Indirectly, the tricks are not an activity that will hold anyone’s attention very long, so the skills do not have value in performance. She was young, and I warned her beforehand, not to persuade her from wanting the ball, but so she would learn a lesson in the persuasiveness of marketing. If I remember correctly, my dad bought her the ball for Christmas, and it should be counted as one of the best gifts she has ever received because of the lesson learned.
An adult’s conception of happiness consists of their entire life of these kind of impressions which are not limited to marketing. Everything they see whether a commercial, music, television, movies, in school, at work, at an event, leaves an impression that contributes to the associative value of subjects. Like the child their idea of happiness consists of subjects they value based on what is perceived to be the feelings they produce. The appearance of happiness has value to most people in American culture, which contributes to leaving impressions on people that contribute value to subjects.
Many people spend their lives pursuing subjects that actually have no value to them. Many of these subjects ensnare the individual as there is responsibility attached to them. Those with the means enter the offices of psychologists having achieved their goals, good job, house, family and money in the bank but don’t have the happiness they associated with the subjects. The idea of happiness is true to them, so they focus on details, usually intimate relationships are the chief subject they feel that needs to be tweaked, and eventually it becomes a matter of adjusting their perspective. The psychologist is a medium to achieving this contentment, suggesting sequencing in the form of the explanation of feelings, thoughts, and behavior. A sequence does not have to be correct to be understood as being true. A true sequence can be true simply because it serves as an explanation of cause and effect,that does not conflict with any other sequences an individual accepts as being true. A mind built on false sequences, that operate as laws to thought, is going to produce uncertainty which is the basis of fear.
I mentioned a scenario previously to highlight conflict of values where a person achieves the subjects of their happiness but hasn’t realized the general feelings of happiness associated with the idea. Many people have not procured their subjects of desire and psychologists are often retained to correct thoughts, feelings, and behavior believed to be hindering progress towards goals. The impacts of changing thought and behavior to achieve goals benefits the counselee in that even if they are pursuing goals of associative value, they are better equipped to achieve other goals of inherent value once they discover their value conflicts. However, despite the ability of learned sequencing to change behavior, any sequencing accepted as true which is not, although it leads to desired changes may lead to other undesirable thoughts, feelings, behavior, and obstructions to general life purposes.
People’s value of subjects, what they like, is largely the product of associations. For example. When I was about 8 years old, I asked my dad why he was a democrat? He said because his dad told him the democrats are the party of the working people. Which was probably certainly truer when his dad told him, than it was when he told me, but not because of the principles of the party, it was based on the fact there was greater union participation, more money, and more influence in a government where the representation of an interest is equal to the money behind it, versus the money behind an interest the represented interest harms. According to Thomas Ferguson, money took on more meaning overtly in politics after the 94 mid-term elections where democrats moved even further away from representing working interests than they had previously to attract the money required to stay competitive in elections. Which isn’t to say it didn’t direct policy prior to that in both parties, only that the expression of it became more overt and the thin principles the democrats may expressed began to erode further. Obama testified to that effect stating that 30 years before he took office he would have been considered a moderate republican.
The point is, his value of the democratic party was tied to the value of his dad and is tied to his value of himself. It wasn’t based on any understanding of actual policy. This gave value to anything associated with democrats, and his understanding of politics was largely based on what they said. His understanding essentially consisted of what value they ascribed to subjects he had a minimal understanding of. In an act that seemingly contradicts this assertion, I think he said he voted for H.W. Bush during the 88 election, but this speaks more to the effectiveness of marketing, the ineffectiveness of Dukakis, and my dad’s limited understanding of politics and government at that time.
This is why Trump doesn’t have to say much more than it’s very bad or it’s very good because his supporters’ value of him is based on other values, and the value he attributes to subjects give value to subjects for his supporters. Trump is the best example of this in the sheer volume of these kinds of statements, but associative value is the basis of the American public’s political understanding and is an individual’s general basis for value across all subjects. Other associated value is only slightly deeper, the value of statements, or the illusion of knowledge based on statistics with limited context.
Most people’s understanding is based on association and not substance. I’ll provide a few examples, which are supported by many more in the Comments and Exchanges section.
Excerpt from a message exchange with my dad: An associative understanding is where what is believed to be true isn’t based on an understanding of why it’s true, but is based on a person’s value (like) of associated subjects. For example, I probably texted or wrote some stupid email about the economy in the early stages of my development, and you responded “a republican economist told Clinton no one could fix the economy in 4 years.” I don’t remember what my position was, but you took an opinion as a fact because you think a republican economist would be biased, and if the republican economist said this about a democrat, it must be true. Without the ability to articulate any of the understanding that makes that statement true or false you accept it as true.
Another example is a recent comment exchange about Coronavirus. I’m not including my response because it is primarily an argument against the exaggerated threat of the virus based on the interest of the media to maintain attention to sell advertising or sell subscriptions.
Commenter: Shawnte Isaac Our lying, fearmongering, criminal, and wannabe dictator President told us NOT to worry about a pandemic. WE SHOULD ALL BE ACTIVELY WORRYING!
This comment was the subject of associative reasoning, where a negative association with a subject and a person serves as the inverse basis for establishing fact. In many other situations a positive association with an individual, as mentioned in the previous example, serves as the basis for establishing fact. This kind of reasoning, where what people believe to be true about a subject is not based on an understanding of the subject, but is based on their value of people, and people’s opinion about a subject where that opinion doesn’t reflect anything factual concerning the subject. It is observable throughout this species, serving as the primary basis of reasoning and opinion formation.
Sometimes value forms or is reinforced through mistaken causation. My dad injured his back working and was out of work for a few years as a result. He benefited from a computer skills class that allowed him to reenter the workforce after being on AFDC for probably 3 years, if not longer. The Clinton Administration through The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act which was largely the product of republican efforts, gave states greater control over welfare implementation, among other provisions reducing benefits and the duration with which one could receive benefits. The class he participated in that led to a career in IT work, was the work of the republican governor Tommy Thompson, and even if the Act may have provided the funds for the program, it was largely a republican creation Clinton signed after vetoing two previous efforts at such reform. Meaning had he vetoed a third it could have been construed as Clinton not being serious about welfare reform.
This isn’t an effort to praise the republicans, I can assure you, I am confident that both parties almost equally do not represent the interests of most people in this country, “with some small differences” that impact the lives of some people.
The reason I mentioned the event is to highlight the creation of value based on subjective conditions and false causation. Clinton is a democrat which gives him value to my dad based on the associative value of democrats to his dad, and the identification as working class with the idea that the democrats represent the working people. Clinton was very articulate and accrued value based on what he said, as well as through personality characteristics people value in leaders. Because Clinton was in office and my dad was consuming his speeches, he credits Clinton for contributing to his success and it is his gauge of Clinton’s overall performance as president. If you ask him why he doesn’t like Reagan, he mentions that he knows how hard it was to find a job under Reagan. His position in life reinforces his political views, even though his situation in the 80s would likely have been the same under Carter or Mondale, and his situation in the 90s the same under H.W. Bush, or Bob Dole.
Before I understood anything about politics I identified as a democrat, and I would say things I had no understanding of to defend or assert the value of the party. Among those things I can remember, I would say Clinton presided over the greatest economic expansion in US history, the boom between 1990 and 2000. Of course this boom would have taken place regardless of whether or not Clinton was in office because it was largely the result of the emergence of the tech industry through the commercialization of computers and other innovation related to telecommunications and the microprocessor. Or I would bring up budget surpluses under Clinton, ignorant of the fact that the budget surpluses were the result of a surplus in the social security balance of payments which are then used to purchase treasury bonds. The surplus is the result of general economic conditions described in cause in the aforementioned, versus the number of people being paid benefits.
I didn’t understand anything about these issues, those were go to lines to promote my value of the party which began through the association of the value of my dad, his dad, and myself. My political understanding was largely the product of speeches from politicians and my preferred mainstream media. I didn’t know enough to have a political conversation, but in the right setting I could say one of those lines and seem like I possessed an understanding to other people who also didn’t possess an understanding, which is most of the population.
I imagine there are studies that confirm this kind of associative value, and if not, research can be conducted to gauge this kind of associative value, but more importantly, associative value in general. Suggestive evidence that political understanding and affiliation is largely inherited is attributable to the fact that most areas vote for the same party in every election, most notably in presidential elections. This can be ascribed to other causes, mainly the collective values of the geographical area are more consistent with one party or the other, but under any kind of examination those values can be shown to be associative, with the great majority of people having no understanding of how policy will affect their lives, and they are unable to provide any explanation beyond something they are parroting from a pundit or politician.
Not limited to marketing, not limited to politics, not limited to being from family, but most of the value people attribute to subjects has nothing to do with the inherent value of the subject in regard to the sensations it produces or understanding its value in purpose. Most of what people like, which focuses their attention, is on subjects they probably wouldn’t like if they understood the true value of these subjects in the proper context, and it has profound effects on producing the world we live in as well as consequences for states of mind on an individual basis.
Feelings generally supply value which causes feelings to be our chief motivator, as we pursue what causes us to feel good and avoid what causes us to feel bad. Feelings are either motivating or prohibitive. Negative feelings are the result of some perceived imposition. The response is some degree of anger or sadness, depending on the perceived ability of the individual to remove the imposition, where anger typically leads to resistance, and sadness is the acceptance of it.
The third category of negative or prohibitive feelings is fear. Fear is uncertainty, and the degree of fear depends on the degree of interest the individual has in the outcome.
The causes of positive feelings vary, sensations are the response to interaction and ideas. There are innate sources of pleasure, general things like food, sex, money, drugs, social interaction, that produce positive or motivating feelings, and there are more “likes” that are developed. A product of senses, familiarity, and understanding.
We feel what we are thinking in the absence of stimulation, and how we feel influences our perception and what we think.
I don’t see the benefit in distinguishing between different positive feelings, positive feelings are very subjective, people like different things for different reasons and as long as the thing they like or what they do to acquire or accomplish the thing doesn’t impose anyone else it isn’t a problem.
Feelings are important in as much as they are prohibitive or motivating and distinguishing between them and trying to isolate and give additional meaning to them doesn’t serve a practical purpose in understanding human behavior.