Monthly Archives: January 2011


Here’s a quick observation:  Have you noticed that the definition of the word RICH, which includes the synonyms; WEALTHY, WELL-OFF and DOING WELL are in the process of being re-defined?  There is a brief viewing window that opens at a certain point in the process of re-defining words and concepts  for use by the general population.  This one is just opening.  If we pay attention, we can see this process in action.  In this case, RICH; which used to mean “someone who possesses much wealth” [sic] is becoming:  “someone who has little or very little debt” [sic].  The measuring stick is changing from what one has to what one owes.

Pretty soon, it might just become a “general rule” that no one is supposed to have any wealth at all and that the whole point to an individual’s financial identity is to reduce the debt that we apparently were all born with.

Have you noticed this?

By the way, as a point of reference, “general rules” are conditions of daily life that exist and that we follow like rules, but no one ever formally declared them rules.  Here are a couple of examples, for perspective:  General Rule: “You can not live life without a cell phone”.  or General Rule:  “It is no longer allowed to remember or to speak about the time before Caller ID, as the thought of answering the phone without knowing who is calling can cause severe emotional trauma.”

Tagged , , ,

What do we really want?

It is about time that we finally face this question, isn’t it?   Shit and fan have already collided and the only unknown at this point is whether or not the splatter which covers everything will leave even the tiniest space to squeeze through or to make camp in.   The few who try to speak about the issue are exactly that: too few and perhaps they have lost faith in the rest of us to do anything at all, even though they can clearly see what is happening and they are trying to do the right thing by following the natural, human instinct to DO something .

Our generation stands of the brink of the next, the biggest and very possibly the most important change in the human condition, ever.  This is the first time in our collective history where all of us know where all of us are and how to communicate with any one of us.  In spite of the bitter taste in our mouths which is the by-product of what we have done to ourselves, we are also waking up to something totally new and it is good and sweet.  We all carry with us this new sense of us – the real us: all 6.8 billion of us give or take, not the very old and tired version of “us” based on political boundaries.  If a sentence, an idea or even thinking includes an “us’ and a “them”, then that isn’t the real “us” because there is no “them”.  We are all we have and we have such an incredible opportunity to restructure what we do and what we think we know into something that works, if we really want to.  It is incomprehensible to look out upon our world and see almost everyone doing NOTHING about the only thing that really matters; the tiny speck of time that we are here, alive and human.  The machinery that runs the day-to-day life of humanity fell apart completely and yet we don’t even ponder the significance of the moment.  We simply watch everything that we think we know crumble around us and do what?  Wait to see what happens?  Hope that someone will figure out a way to fix the world that we created and which shatters our very humanity but which we refuse to let go of?  There are enormous pockets of people everywhere who are angry, or terrified, or depressed or just plain lost, and not a one of us can spark a conversation which contemplates something different?  Is it because what we are angry about is that “I never got my turn to enjoy money and success?” Is the thought that we might actually become inspired to do something new which would do away with money as we know it what terrifies us? Could it be that what we are depressed about is the harsh reality that nothing we’ve ever come up with to run our world has ever worked and even though we know better we can’t help but to covet money, because it’s all we know?  Finally, are we lost because we don’t know how to let go of our addiction to the concept of money and wealth and what it allows for us to do:  purchase other people’s envy and impose our will on those around us.  Is that it?  It this the best we got? Are we going to let everything that we are and have been and might possibly be, simply fade away into nothingness?  Have we become that weak and lazy and complacent and full of ourselves and so idiotic?  Have we become a world of pussies? If that’s what we want, that’s what we’ll get, unless we choose something different.

I think that we can do better and I REALLY WANT for us to have that chance. That’s a start.

So what do you really want?

Tagged , , , ,

#182321 – On the nature of assholes

This calculation refers to the descriptive quality of the word asshole(s) when used in the daily lexicon in reference to human behavior or as a personality title.  e.g. “Jorge is an asshole.”

In spite of the fact that the general term asshole(s) is used to relate to the demonstration of certain human qualities that are generally considered negative, the conceptual definition of the word as per its actual use in daily human communication reveals a much deeper, philosophical and dichotomic aura than what is perceived ad nauseum.

Asshole, when used as  a human title in the family of trait titles (such as humanitarian, philanthropist, dick-head, fuck-up and others) is a popular neologism which serves as a descriptive reference.  There are two kinds of assholes.

Type 1 assholes

Type 1 assholes are people (typically men) who are possessed of a profane and offensive amount of pre-potence, self-importance, arrogant superiority and the despective mistreatment of others, which is the sole manifestation of these qualities.  The acute and impacting imposition of these qualities by an asshole is so offensive to anyone who encounters one, that the encounter leaves behind a perceptive and psycho-emotional smell of shit, whereby shit is used to qualify the maximum level of repugnance of a thing.  99.5% of all living assholes are type 1 assholes.


Type 2 assholes

The remaining .5% of all living assholes are type 2 assholes.  They are people (almost exclusively men) who live by a code of conduct, ethics and morals which are so strict, correct and proper that any other person who may witness the manifestation of a type 2 asshole would be forced to re-assess their own unacceptable or non-existent discipline in all things correct and proper, and be left  feeling like shit, whereby shit is used to qualify a personal self-assessment of one’s attitude or discipline which is so lacking is so offensive that the human brain relates it to literal shit (excrement), which is universally understood to be one of the most offensive if not the most offense substance in the world.

Morphology of the linguistic formation of the neologism.

The selection of the word asshole to represent the neologism asshole was established by relative association in the formation of synaptic mental lexicon constructs, which are formed in representation of observed and perceived stimuli.  Both types of assholes, when manifesting the quality of an asshole, leave behind a philosophical, if not perceptive manifestation, which is related, by the brain to shit, in terms of an offensive qualifier.  Shit comes out of assholes in the human body, therefore since what comes out of a person possessed of the qualities described in this study is directly associated with shit, then the source of the shit, can only be an asshole, since it is a firmly established fact that shit can only come out of an asshole..


The human brain, when forming the synaptic connections, will use existing and real things in the physical universe and relate them to new concepts in the morphological stage of establishing lexicon synapses thusly cementing the foundations of language and by extension the ability to communicate rationally with other human beings.  By virtue of this study, it is clear that due to the insurmountable number of concepts and synapses possible when attempting to quantify human communication as a function of the species, the brain will use the simplest and most obvious forms of relative associations in the formation of synaptic connections to represent new concepts, neologisms and finally words.  An encounter with either one of the two varieties of human characteristics explained in this study result in either being left with the figurative smell of emotional shit or simply feeling like a piece of shitShit comes from assholes, therefore, these humans are also to be called assholes.

Frank Vidal  5/22/2010

Catalogue #182321

Proud son of a rare and beautiful type 2 asshole.


Unraveling the Money Paradox (the short form)

Time is of the essence if the paradox that is money is to be unraveled; the rate at which the word “money” is re-defined in the world’s dictionaries may just spawn another paradox and the rules are clear on this:  only one paradox at a time!   Levity aside, this is a serious issue; money, by definition, is a paradox; why do you think there is a catastrophic global economic crisis?  That’s quite a mouthful for an opening paragraph, isn’t it?  Let’s take a step back, together, and take a “bird’s eye” view of this issue, it’s not as complicated as one might think as far as paradoxes are concerned, but it will change your perspective – on everything.

This paradox, true to form, is born of a contradiction; which are common when it comes to money.  It lives at the crux of two particular contradictions; the first one is found in the formal definition of the word:  money.  The second one is found is the history of our relationship with money.

Let’s start with the first contradiction which exists in the formal definition of the word:  money.  In any and all the definitions of the word money, you will still find a good portion of its original definition,  in particular the part which defines money as “a measure of value” or more completely, as “a store of value”. That’s as far as you have to go to reach the paradox and probably why the latter portion is quickly disappearing from the official reference books of the English Language.  It is incredible to conceive that the colossal mess we all have on our hands can stem for four little words:  “a store of value”.  The word value (you can click on the word to link to its definition(s) on the web) is a mathematical term which describes a calculation designed to render the relative worth of a thing.  Specifically, when used as a noun, value is defined as “a point in the range of a function corresponding to a given point in the domain of a function”.  This means that value, the noun is what we call the result of value, the verb which is “to calculate or reckon the monetary value of”.  Here we see the direct link between the words value and money, to the point where they are each contained in the other’s definition and we can also understand that the value of money is a mathematical calculation which must be carried out whenever money is to be used so that it’s specific point in the function of valuing a thing can be pinpointed and calculated.  Next, let’s look at the word store which can also be used as a noun or a verb.  In the first case it is defined as “an establishment where merchandise is sold…” and as a verb it can mean “to supply or stock with something, as for future use” and “to accumulate or put away, for future use”.  Simple, isn’t it?  This word described the act of putting something somewhere to be used later.  When we add of this up, the paradox becomes evident:  Value cannot be stored, only calculated; attempting to store value is not a physical possibility, you can’t store value, you can only store a particular value for later use.  In the case of money, this means that only one calculation of the value of money can be stored for later use (presumably ours).  This being the case, which particular calculation and resulting value is the one that was stored as “The Value Money”?  Who approved or agreed to it?  What is the universal stored value of money?  It doesn’t exist because Money doesn’t exist:   it’s a paradox.  If the value of money were calculated at one particular time and then stored, that would be the worth of money, period.  If there were an actual stored value of money, there would never be inflation, or recession or ups and downs in the dollar index because there would be a stored value to refer to that would eliminate the possibility of any of these other things occurring.  That’s not what we did, however.  No one ever sat down and ran the math to calculate the value of money and then stored it for future reference, as the definition implies, we actually tried to store the concept of value, which is nothing more than a mathematical equation, and kept a straight face while doing it.  If we were to actually attempt to store the process of a calculation as the result of the calculation, why that would be way too convenient for whoever controls the definitions of things, like money.  If one tries to do the math on this, the answer would be clear:  the value of money would be whatever the person or entity controlling the calculation of its value wants it to be.  Do you know who controls the calculation of the value of money?  Nobody.  Money isn’t even a thing; it’s a construct that represents something else.  Aristotle knew this way back when he wrote his second book on Politics.  He knew that we (humans) would get this confused and wrote “ is not wealth, it is merely the representation of wealth.  We must not get the two confused.” Money isn’t even real, it exists in lieu of something else, therefore to claim that money is a store of value without the “value” being a universally accepted constant is a paradox, or in simpler terms, it would be what Tom Sawyer would call “a fib”.

The first contradiction establishes the paradox beyond the shadow of a doubt, but as we have come to learn; doubt apparently has a very long shadow; there will those who cry foul and assert that the first contradiction is not one at all, that it is merely a trick on words or the like.    This is why the second contradiction is presented next; it leaves no room for doubt or argument.  Every effort will be made to keep the explanation short, but some things can simply not be said in 25 words or less.  The second contradiction lies in our relationship with money throughout history.  We won’t need to review our entire history for this, just some of the highlights.  We should begin roughly 12,000 years ago at the time of Neolithic revolution. This is when we (humans) came up with agriculture, one of the most significant moments in our history.  Prior to having the extra food which was the life-altering by-product of agriculture, we were grouped into small, nomadic tribes of hunter-gatherers.  We communicated with words and hand signs for certain things but we did not have the need for language, or for specialized words like value or store.  We did however, understand what a priority was:  it was a priority to eat, or one would die.  We spent all of our time looking for food.  This took up the vast majority of our time, all of which was spent doing one of 4 basic things:  eating, drinking water, sleeping and procreating the species, until we did the math and developed agriculture, which changed everything.  Suddenly, where before life was all about the quest for food, there was extra food.  This was one of the most significant moments in our history:   immediately, we realized that the extra food could be stored; wheat and barley were stored in sacks and milk in barrels and these were then warehoused in storage areas belonging to those who had risen to power thanks to the extra time that agriculture freed up, allowing us to come up with other concepts like social classes, and government, and religion and trade and almost everything else that we came up with since.  When all of those things were added up, we came to the conclusion that the food we had stored was valuable because we could eat it later and could therefore abate hunger and death.  This was so important that eventually, people would sell themselves and their children into slavery for food.

Not everyone had all kinds of food in their store of value.  As an example, the people who had stored grain may not have had milk and this is how trade and commerce began.  One of the new groups of congregated humans that formed what we now call kingdoms would trade with another kingdom.  Those who had the most food stored had the higher store of value (sound familiar?). We quickly discovered the difficulty of negotiating the trade of large quantities of food and other goods by directly transporting these quantities to the point of the trade.  What if something happened to the other guys?  What if there was a robbery? (We developed stealing almost immediately after agriculture). These were important questions, so we decided to use smaller and more easily transported representations of what was being traded, their quantity, weight and worth.  At different points in time, we used salt, shells and other types of coinage as representations of the accumulated stored value of a sovereign nation’s wealth in food (do you now see where all of the terms came from?) Eventually, we settled on 3 basic metals to use as the core materials for the coins that we would mint to represent different values of stored wealth (food).  The most value was assigned to gold; it was easily malleable into coins and it was rare enough that it could be compared to food.  In very little time, everything was transacted in gold, silver and bronze; all of which were representations of weights and tares of food and as time passed, people started to forget that gold represented food and began to identify the value of wealth with gold until gold became the thing of value that was stored. Gold has been the most valuable thing in the world for a long time now, or so we think; it’s still food, no one every officially changed the thing of value that was stored and which represented wealth from food to gold, but it just happened.  Food eventually became disconnected from the definition of wealth and to the great benefit of many, became commodities, which formed another stratum of value where there was none before. There was no uniformity in the calculation of the value of gold however, it became erratic and variable around the time of the industrial revolution and this inconsistency became worse until the second world war, after which the gold standard was implemented by the Breton-Woods system, with the U.S. dollar as the measure of the value of gold and the reserve currency of the world.  The gold standard was in effect and somewhat stabilized the already weakened value calculations for money that occurred with the arbitrary selection of gold as the thing of most value in the world until 1973, when U.S. President Richard M. Nixon dissolved the gold standard and created fiat money as legal tender, which has no value or formulas at all.  Their worth and their value are set based on the opinion and word of the government that prints the money that has represented nothing at all since 1973.  When you have money, which is defined as a measure of wealth in representation of the store of value and there is no wealth or value linked to the money with which to calculate any kind of value whatsoever, you are left with a contradiction that forms a very ugly paradox.

So, now we are clear on this:  money is a paradox, and as such it is only performing its function as a social tool for trade because we still believe that it is real and based on something, somewhere that has value. A great many people think that paper money is still backed by gold.  The reality that it is not is hitting everyone like the proverbial ton of bricks and the question to be asked is imminent:  how do we unravel it?

We write new math.  We’re the ones who invented all of this anyway and we’re the ones who need to come up with something that works before this paradox stops us all in cold in our tracks. None of the things we’ve ever tried up until now have worked; otherwise we wouldn’t be in this situation.  We need new ideas for our new world.  Are we up to the task?

Frank Vidal


New concepts and ideas are readily contemplated by people who have QI (Quantum-dynamic Index thinking).

Tagged , , , ,