A SIMPLE, LITTLE QUESTION FOR “THEM”

This is a little rant that resulted from a fit I threw when I read that the IMF had officially explained that the cause of the global economic crisis was that “Americans had over-valued their assets and set off a destructive chain reaction of inflation and recession”. I was pissed.  Read on…

If any part of a mechanism that is defined by the sum of parts breaks, then the entire mechanism is broken.  Humanity is defined by the sum of its parts; this means that WE are defined by the sum total of each and every one of us.  Not by some of us, or by most of us and especially not by the “good” or “better” ones but by all of us.    Every single human being’s choices add to and become part of the definition of who and what we are:  what we have chosen to call humanity or humankind.  Regardless of this, there are those of us (let’s call them THEM) who will, in their imagination, consider this fact to be detrimental to, or in contradiction with or against the core beliefs held by THEM as separate from everyone else, kind of like a similar humanoid life-form, but different that everyone else; better, actually.  This disagreement arises because of an inequity resulting from the comparison between what the opening statement means and what THEY imagine it means and more specifically, how it can threaten THEM.  Truth is incapable of being a threat, harboring a threat or even being used as a threat.  This imaginary threat that THEY fear so much (the possibility that we are actually all the same) will rear up and attempt to defend itself by replying with “Why?” or “How?” and especially with “who are you to say that?”   First of all, any question which is answered with a question is an indication that the one questioning is made uneasy and fearful by the original question and attempts to question it in front of others in order to attempt to create doubt, by any means necessary, as to the validity of the question and by doing so as to have somewhere to hide.  An attempt like the one described would only validate the original question in terms of relevance, however this validation is not required.  The logic this truth leaves is the clear understanding that there are many of us because it is necessary, otherwise there would only be one.  The universe does not understand excess or mediocrity and because of that, neither should we.

We are faced today with a challenge without equal in our history, requiring actions not yet even conceived in order to negotiate our forgiveness from ourselves and allow for humanity to continue existing.  The challenge we face is the preservation of our humanity, the threat is that we have somehow come to believe and accept that humanity is the money that each human has or can get.  When this is subjected to the process called “the sum total of all the shit we’ve done to ourselves” you get results like the “economic crisis of 2008-2010”.

It has been explained by “experts” and people of “letters and knowledge” that the present “global economic crisis” was caused by the overvaluation of assets by Americans, which then allegedly set off a chain of events and actions which have led us to where we are today in September of 2010 which is:  scared shit-less and in panic.  Naturally, we believed this and immediately become scared shit-less and panicked if we weren’t already.  After all, “the experts” are telling us this and they know because they have a piece of paper that says they are an expert and they have been “validated” and “authenticated” by virtue of having claimed to be an expert before and not being dis proven as one, which is all that “being published” or “credentialed” or “noted and recognized” means, so they are unquestionably correct, right?

I’d like to ask those experts exactly just how does anything become overvalued?  We are the ones who assign the value of everything that has value and we can assign it the value that we want, so how can anything be “overvalued”?  This is like saying that someone is “a little bit pregnant”.   We are the ones who establish the value of everything and we are supposed to believe that we “overvalued” our assets?  Notwithstanding that to my mind, that the only proper definition of an “asset” is a small donkey or the buttocks of a child:   to proclaim, in front of everyone, that we are suffering one of the worst periods in recorded history because we screwed up our bookkeeping, is only slightly more self-insulting than it is asinine and idiotic.  Who exactly are these experts and how can they make such stupid remarks and keep a straight face?  THEY, are those of us who become “them”, as in “they say that the real estate market will bounce back” and “of course we overvalued our assets, they said so.”

“THEY” and “THEM” have been the source and cause of every ill we’ve suffered and given how badly we’ve suffered, it’s truly incredible that not one of us has come forward and screamed that there is no “THEM” and that’s is all just “us”.  We made THEM up and gave THEM life and authority and now THEY are literally killing us, and we forgot they’re not even real?

I’d very much like to have a talk with THEM, and ask THEM to please explain exactly how we, either individually or as a global civilization, can “overvalue” and “asset”.  Would THEY actually attempt to answer that?  They just might, it’s not like any of us are going to disagree from the looks of things.

We have to stop doing this, now.  I realize that it would mean admitting that we’ve been wrong about everything since forever and that we have come to believe  that deceit and trickery are the tools of success and that we’ve all lied our assess off for so long; but that’s okay; we can forgive ourselves and try this humanity thing again.  We can, really.  Now would be a good time.

Collective math excercise #1

There is a particular equation in some math that I’m working on that I’m kind of stuck on.  It occurred to me to share it and gratefully accept any input on the topic.

The equation, if translated to a sentence, would read something like this:

Can a person resign their free will or is resigning to one’s free will a contradiction?

The contradiction would be that it is mathematically paradoxical to argue that one can will ones self to not have will.  For the sake of this math, let’s introduce the variable of apathy as one affecting everyone’s will, so that we don’t have to deal with those messy paradoxes.  Apathy is a fit candidate for a catalyst leading to the individual resignation of will (or whatever name we wish to give it.)  Please note that there is a distinction here when it comes to apathy as a cause and apathy as a result of a process.  There are many arguments forming among those who would debate and discuss the issue that apathy is the result of resigning one’s individual will, and it very well may be.  It might also be a human dynamic factor which exists exclusive of the process of individual will which affects humans in the same way a virus affects another organism.  They may both be correct, in fact neither may be correct; it’s like trying to debate the color of a quark; it’s pretty speculative.  Nonetheless, the apathy that we have to deal with is very real, regardless of where we choose to classify in our dictionaries.

The aforementioned equation is part of a formula which is attempting to contemplate the following possibility:

Theory:  Upon making the observation that huge numbers of people are, in essence “resigning” to their will by participating in a massive state of apathy which has become an epidemic of global proportions and that this observable phenomenon has created an apparent “blind” spot in human judgment with regards to the outcome of this choice, (this being the only plausible explanation for the utter and total lack of action in light of our rapidly accelerating collision with our own catastrophic redefinition), and given the fact that this catastrophic event is imminent (<10 years or much sooner):  Does that make solving the conditions which created the apathetic environment that started this process an imposition? This is important because, simply put, impositions are not allowed – we are dealing with the effects of the imposition of human will on other humans every day.

When a person stops caring, are they resigning their free will?  Does that resignation simply eliminate that person’s free will from the collective of free wills of humans, or can an individual’s “will” (relating it to a physical thing) be “transferred” to any other person who cares enough to assimilate the responsibility?

In other words:  When does helping someone who won’t help themselves with even the basics of human existence END and forcing someone to accept help begin?

The “quick-and-dirty” solution to this math is that the demarcation point between one and the other should be whatever we collectively decide it should be.  I suspect that this may also be the correct result yielded by this math, but if it is:  then why haven’t we established this point yet?  (That was a loaded question.)

We have avoided the collective analysis of this equation for a long time now; perhaps this would be a good time to begin?  It doesn’t make much sense to survive the result of our own irresponsibility by committing another one, does it?

I kept the word count low on this post because I was worried about being too long.  If anyone would like more details on the math, please just let me know; I’ll be glad to share it! (Sorry, I couldn’t resist!  I have no shame!)

We can do better!

Roots; squared (or, Can someone tell me how to superscript fonts when I post?)

There is not enough gratitude in the world that would be enough to give to one of our best and most brilliant communicators; author Alex Haley.  Sometimes I contemplate the possibility that he might have known what his famous novel; Roots, would do for all of us.   Sometimes, I also wonder how many people might see what this wonderful book did for humanity, or if they at least understand how a human truth is intransigent to being misunderstood by any human being.  For those of us who were here at the time, the Roots phenomenon and its unique success on television should, at least statistically, raise an impacting and valid question: If Roots is the story of the history of one family and their unplanned, unwilling and at times horrific migration from Africa to the U.S. at the hands of slave traders which in turn became a tool and a mechanism through which their descendants managed to give birth to a particular, albeit obsolete human dynamic called cultural identification (aka cultural identity); then why did it affect everybody so much instead of just the descendants of the protagonists of the story?  How is it that anyone and everyone, regardless of any variables, somehow related to Roots? We ALL related to Roots.

The answer is simple; we all related to Roots because it is a story of HUMAN perseverance and triumph over adversity.  (Note: the triumph was over the adversity created by our own ignorance, stupidity and greed, not over OTHER people.) We can all relate to that:  the story stimulated the very same feelings, be it sorrow, anger, shame or pride, in all of us.  Kunta Kinte was simply one of us; a human being.  Not only that, he was an example of humanity for all of us.

Thank you Alex Haley, for participating in what very well may have been one of the first instances of a particular global human dynamic which is also one of the keys to our future; the dynamic concept of us; all of us.

(Author’s note:  The math says that most of us who may read this post will notice something, however there is a very good probability that a lot of us WON’T.  I’m referring to the fact that this entire post was written without having to mention an “ethnic” label.  Not once does “black”, “white” “African American” or any other absurd label appear in the post and yet it was perfectly understandable.  Now THAT deserves a celebration!)

We can do better.

The inescapability of the math can be funny.

CLARIFICATION:

This post is meant to be humorous.  I mention this only because many times it appears that we are losing the ability to recognize humor; we take everything as seriously as we would an attack of projectile diarrhea during the first 20 minutes of the concert that you waited eight months for and purchased the two seats in the third row for $600.00 each from a guy named AlTedRalphTom, or something like that.  As a precaution, it would be advisable to make sure that the brain is receptive to humor.  There is a quick and easy test you can perform to determine this:  Turn at the waist as far as you can (in either direction) until you have the best possible view of you own ass.  If a stick is protruding from your ass, please remove it.  This will make the assimilation of humor easier and simpler.

DISCLAIMER:

This post is intended to be funny, yet there is no guarantee, implicit or implied that anyone or maybe just you will find it funny.  If you do find the post funny; then Thank You!  My name is Frank and I’m happy to share a laugh with you.  If you did not find this post funny, then my name is AlTedRalphTom, and I have some concert tickets that you might be interested in.

A client and dear friend wrote to me today regarding something we were working on.  Part of the message read as follows:

“..I definitely think this will be resolved now…  What in the world is “definite”, anyway?”

What a delightful sense of humor and timing!  The simple thought thrown into to a serious business communication was brilliant!  Afterwards, I started thinking:  What does definite mean anyway?  We use is so frequently and repeat it with such definite confidence (you see?) that I thought it practical to look up the roots and history of the word and refresh my own definitions, which I share with you today.

The significance of most words can be understood by taking the word apart an analyzing its component morphemes or in a similar way, what we used to call the word’s “roots” when I was in elementary school, a long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away.  Let’s see what this analysis tells us about the word definite.

The word definite is composed of three root morphemes:  ”def-”, “-in-”  and “-ite”. Let’s look at them one at a time, shall we?

First; “def”, a root word which is derived from the popular neologism def, one in a long line of American cultural neologisms which specify a positive attribute to something.   Def as an attribute means outstanding, right on, precisely awesome or fantastic in and of itself.  It is a descendant of the neologisms; ”far out”, “groovy” and “right on”, which means “right on target” or “precise”. Def may already have become an obsolete neologism, replaced by a newer and much hipper one, but I wouldn’t know because I’m over 40, which makes even my use of def questionable to many by virtue of my age.  Use: Yo, this is a def crib you have!

Now, lets look at “in”, which means inside of, in and of itself or intrinsic to.

Finally; “-ite” a suffix which comes from the Latin; “-itus” which is a past participle suffix.

From this analysis, we can determine that definite means, something that is intrinsically determined to be precise, certain and positive and has always been that way.  Right?

See the actual definition of definite here.

Isn’t that something?  The math is usually inescapable, leading you to the same conclusion, regardless of the route one chooses!

Cheers!  🙂

Frank

THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MOVEMENT AND PROGRESS

This is both an interesting and an important issue for all of us, perhaps more so than we may realize. You will be the judge of that.

Incredibly, we sometimes get confused when discerning movement from progress as it applies to humans. It’s difficult to understand exactly how we get these concepts confused so easily. When explored, many of our apparent “confusions” are actually attempts at misdirection (quite bold and absurd ones, at that). It is very interesting that the same conceptual (intentional?) confusion that occurs here also occurs in a similar way with other pairs of words where one can be only a function of the other and they somehow become synonymous, (i.e.; money and wealth).

In the case of movement and progress, this “confusion” becomes dangerous in light of the current state of our relationship with the concepts of “economics” and “commerce”. It becomes confusing because of an imposed twist in the conceptual understanding of words (also called morphology). In this case, the twist is imposed on the word “progress”; a word which, when seen alone, is one of the very rare examples of a single-word misnomer. You see, there can be no ‘progress’, unless it is linked to a stated or established goal. Our intense obsession with now made it clear that it was time-consuming and burdensome to say “progress towards the established goal of x”, so we took the need for an established goal as a “given” and reduced the morphemes that were spoken and left it at ‘progress’. When little Timmy’s mom asked Timmy’s teacher; “Has Timmy made any progress?” It is understood (at least between the teacher and Timmy’s Mom) that there have been previous conversations regarding an observed deficit of some kind relating to Timmy and school and that these conversations resulted in an established goal for Timmy to eliminate or reduce those deficits, even if was just between the teacher and Timmy’s mom. At some point (probably during the industrial revolution, but that’s just a guess), we changed the definition of “progress” to mean “Improvement in the financial position of a person, a group or a sovereign nation.” [sic] and made it okay for the word to be used by itself, requiring mention of a specific goal only if the “progress” in question was NOT about money. This issue can be very difficult to explain and just as difficult to understand, so perhaps some examples of the way movement and progress are used interchangeably and sometimes intentionally, will help to get the point across.

Example 1:

This is a very common use of movement as an intentional misdirection which alludes to progress; how many of us have done this? – You are eating a meal with family or company. Before you: a plate of something that you do not like, do not recognize or simply do not want to eat. It is considered a moderate to serious breach of protocol to not eat when seated at a table with others (especially if the others are your hosts), so you move the food around in the plate; push some to the side, clump it in the middle or even very carefully remove some from the plate into a napkin, to be discarded later, or to the floor, given the presence of the ever-faithful house pooch, who sits patiently waiting for scraps. You do this intentionally, to create the appearance that you ate the food (progress), when in fact you did not eat it, you rearranged the conditions (movement) to make it appear that you ate. This seemingly “harmless” use of the substitution of concepts, for whatever the reason, sets the stage for other, not-so-harmless substitutions.

Example 2:

This is a very specific example (and a bit wordy, so bear with me) which more than likely occurred only once, yet is such a powerful example of how this confusion occurs with. In order to preserve the privacy of those involved, the names, places and events in the example have been changed, yet the integrity of the example is untouched. – Igor is a highly motivated and resourceful individual with a high threshold of independence who is very results-oriented in his professional formation. Igor is not afraid to take a calculated risk, given that he understands the relationship between risk and financial progress, given that the latter can only occur in full view of the former. In the course of life, Igor comes across a tough time which affects his ability to be as independent as he prefers to be, in fact his ability to maintain a household became temporarily null, a situation which requires an immediate solution of some kind for most people. Reluctantly, Igor accepts an invitation from his in-laws, who offer temporary and complementary room and board in their home (which was 1200 miles from where Igor lived) for Igor and his wife (these are his actual and current in-laws, by the way, which is another way of saying that they are his wife’s parents and not the parents of an ex-wife!) Igor and his father-in-law; Boris, had never seen eye-to-eye on most issues, which is a very polite way of saying that Boris did not like his son-in-law, a fact that he never hid (from anyone except Igor). Boris considered himself a successful businessman and very much liked to voice that opinion, especially after drinking a case or two of beer. Boris business consisted of a few rare, collectible coins, which he had placed for sale under consignment at an antique and collector’s shop. Every once in a while, someone would buy one of the coins, resulting in a small profit for Boris, which he split with the shop owner. His share of the profit became both his working capital and his income. If someone bought a coin, Boris might (or might not) call his childhood friend, who had grown up to be a very successful rare coin dealer, and buy a coin from him, thereby replenishing his inventory at the antique shop. Many times, months would go by without Boris selling a coin, nonetheless, he maintained a strict daily routine, which, barring sickness or an emergency, consisted of the following: Boris would wake up, shower and dress every day, seven days a week, at approximately 2:45 to 3:00 a.m. (yes, a.m.) He would have coffee, black, no sugar with 2 pieces of dry toast and was usually out the door by 3:15. Boris would drive to the antique shop (he had a key), take his coins out of the display case, then clean and polish them. He would put them back into the display case. Boris then swept the shop’s parking lot and with hose and sponge, washed the front display windows of the shop. By 4:30 a.m. he was usually back in his car and on the way to the neighborhood bakery where the baker was just getting ready to take the first of the days’ bread out of the oven (and was probably the only other person in town awake). The bakery opened at 5:00 a.m.; if Boris arrived earlier, he would sit in his car and wait. At 5:00 a.m. he would go into the bakery, buy an assortment of bread for the day and milk, butter, cream, etc. as needed. He would talk to the baker for about an hour (again, very few people are up at that time). During the time that Igor was living in his house, his topic of choice to converse with the baker was Igor, or as Boris would say; “The lazy bum that my daughter married.” At around 6:00 a.m., Boris would pull up at the neighborhood coffee shop, a popular morning spot for the neighborhood businessmen on their way to open up their businesses. He would walk to the counter, dispensing greetings and “good-mornings” along the way, then order a coffee, black with no sugar as he sat down in the same spot as he did yesterday. Boris would spend about an hour, conversing with the local businessmen, joking and laughingly chastising them for their “lazy man’s schedule”. He would say “It’s six in the morning, are you bums just getting up? Ha! I’ve already put in a day’s work.” Everyone would obligatorily laugh with Boris; after all, they couldn’t kick him out of the coffee shop for being an asshole (which most of those present considered him). By 7:00 a.m. Boris was at the door of the local supermarket, which was just opening its doors and where he would buy those items that his wife would list on a piece of paper that she would always place in his shirt pocket and 2 cases of beer. From there, Boris headed home, where he would place the bread and groceries I the kitchen and then put the 2 new (and warm) cases of beer in a special refrigerator he had on his front porch after pulling out the 2 cases he had put in there yesterday, therefore replenishing the cycle by putting tomorrow’s 2 cases to chill. He would pull a bag of ice out his freezer, dump the 48 cans of beer in to a barrel that stood next to his favorite rocking chair, ice them and sit down. He would take of his hat and put in on the little table next to his chair and then pull an ice-cold beer from the barrel. Just as he went to pop the lid, if one looked very carefully, they would see the slightest hint of a smile on Boris’ face, a feat considered impossible by most who knew Boris, as his usual facial expression could best be described as a scowl. Every day, at roughly 8:00 a.m., Boris would begin to drink his 2 cases of beer. During this time, he would usually sit alone, scowling, simmering in his own utter lack satisfaction and unhappiness in general. Sometimes, if the beer cooperated, he would mutter and grumble, kind of like Mr. Magoo but in a very sad and pathetic way. By 2 p.m., Boris was, shall we say; shnokered, bombed, drunk-as-a-skunk or, simply put; f***cked up. At this time, his wife would go out to the front porch to collect him and drag him, cursing and moaning about how lazy and good-for-nothing the world was (and especially Igor, during the time he spent there), to the kitchen, where she would force-feed him a meal then drag him to their bedroom. There, she would bathe him and put on his pajamas and then literally pour him into bed, where we would drift off into a drunken, snoring stupor, until 2:45 a.m. tomorrow. Boris had maintained this routine for so long that no one remembered when he started, he maintained it during the few months that Igor stayed with him, and as far as anyone knows, continued, ad nauseam. This testament is Boris’ life’s work and legacy: movement confused with progress, with a massive dose of human inadequacy, served up in this poignant example.

Example 3.

It is February, 2011. The world’s human population is well into a transition from one civilization to another. This is the first global transition to occur – previously, the cyclic collapse and re-formation of dynamic civilizations were all limited to the geography where the influence of the civilization experiencing the collapse reached (regional). Many obstacles, including political and technological ones, contributed to the lack of a planet-wide communications system; one of the key elements in the process of globalization and the key element in making the present process a global one. The fact that this particular change affects everyone in the world, as opposed to those who live within the socio-economic-political boundaries of the “civilization” in collapse, makes it terra incognita – this is all new. We’ve never experienced this before and there’s never been an internet where we can talk about it, like this. The rules that we have lived by for so long have fractured and are invalid; as a result, there simply isn’t any money anymore, or opportunities (as we used to define them) or the possibility of reviving any portion of those fractured rules to where anyone can make “progress”. We don’t produce anything anymore except debt, we sit, static and stagnant in a state of creative atrophy that doesn’t take into account anything new and different, we insist on hanging on to those old rules. We seek, desperately, something – anything, that can be considered “progress” or least appear to be progress to others (for the only thing worse than reality is what others might say about us). We have become the living manifestation of an old adage; the one about trying to squeeze more juice from a dried up fruit. Could this be the reason why almost 70% of the GDP for 2010 consisted of “fees and other charges”? We sell money, charge a fee for charging a fee and any number of things to generate an income by playing off of the debt, and we worry about not making progress fast enough?

There is no more progress, only movement attempting to imitate it.

 

We can do better.

 

A picture really does say so very much!

Perhaps you may have already seen this picture as it made its way through the cyber-grape-gossip vine.  If you have, it’s okay; look at it again and contemplate this in terms of where our collective heads might be these days.  It’s also one of the few things in our physical universe that requires no math at all, at least from this viewpoint!

Calculation # 182,323 – A function of the process

LABEL:

This math contains ZERO grams of fat, ZERO grams of trans-fat, ZERO opinions, ZERO religion, ZERO politics and ZERO b.s.

Calculation # 182,323

FROM AN OBSERVATION

It is still very fresh:  the memory of the illusion that was.  Many, in fact, have yet to loose themselves from its grasp.  Change has never occurred easily to us, especially when it is imposed as fiercely as it is now.   We rarely invite change voluntarily, even though we all know that it is both inevitable and necessary, but this; this verges on insanity.

Here is where we are now, today.  We are a planet of addicts; prisoners of the mind, not the body.  We do the unthinkable and the illogical in order to obtain a dose of that which ails us; wealth.  Wealth: the accumulation, in excess far beyond any need, of valuables, particularly money. So addictive is this condition that we included money, which is nothing more than a human mechanism used to measure and transfer the common value given to those things considered valuable, as the King of all things valuable.  Why obtain wealth by possessing something worth X amount of money when one can simply possess money without anything in particular in hand, the value of which is measured with money.  It is the ultimate self-indulgence and inarguably the longest-lasting and most powerful mass delusion that we have subjected ourselves to.  Over time, one or a few of us would wake from this false reality, usually as the result of a traumatic experience, however NOW is the first time that we wake en masse from the illusion that so many of us still think real.  The way that was has simply always been, making its unmasking a tedious task, even though after waking from its psychotic embrace, the illusion can be seen as it is; fragile and whimsical.  It is hard to believe such a nonsensical concept dominated every human life and lifetime as far back as our collective memory remembers.

The simplest of all the realizations is also the most difficult to overcome; value, that which is the essence of all things valuable, does not actually exist.  It is an opinion, albeit an imposed collective opinion.  Nothing in the physical universe has any intrinsic value of any kind, nor does it require that anything have value; value is a perceptive opinion exclusive to humans.  We are the ones who decide what has value and how valuable something is.  We do so not by consensus or by any process even remotely resembling one of reason.  We assign the value of all things with our emotions, whimsically, selfishly and capriciously.  We desire the excess of wealth to gain the admiration and respect of our brethren but also lustfully desire their envy – of how much money we have and we relish in the suffering and genuflections of those weaker in spirit, who consider those with money to be better.  We may deny it, but we have all felt this, regardless of how intensely it affected any one of us.

We covet and whore over what is naught but an opinion in order to achieve an illusion and we demean ourselves by doing so.  So profane is this that we have done, that the cumulative weight of the atrocities, deceit and self-deceit that we have heaped upon our heads and shoulders is what began to wake us from the illusion.  It should not be a surprise to any of us that greed eventually defeats its own purpose, but not before reducing everything around it to rubble.

Know this; during this process of “waking”, there will be a time fraught with danger for humans; the sheer numbers of us waking from the illusion will form a process of the waking and it is a function of that process that will be dangerous.  The process has already begun and the function of the process is all but upon us as well.  This function can be defined as the very difficult reconciliation (between the lie and the truth) that we must all calculate if we wish to keep our sanity and move forward.  Not everyone will be able to reconcile what we’ve done to so many generations, including our own.  The point where the reconciliation fails is the pivotal point; once the reconciliation fails, the individual will desperately attempt to re-enter the false reality in search of some closure, however at this point the mind is one clump short of an organic puree; no one can survive that alone.  Additionally, the attempt to re-enter the false reality will fail:  it is an established fact that no one can lie to themselves twice, the second attempt becomes an excuse for weakness, but that won’t stop a lot of us from attempting it.  The result of this function is that the individual concludes that it becomes imperative to take possession of valuables in order to accumulate “wealth” by any means necessary, in a frenzied attempt to satisfy that most powerful of beasts:  our ego.  Those who find themselves in this situation will realize, just a bit too late, that it didn’t work; the illusion’s ability to mimic reality diminishes exponentially as more and more of us wake up from it.  The weakened nature of the illusion which is wealth will be interpreted as scarcity of wealth by those still addicted and those who try to become addicts again, in vain.   Statements such as “there’s no money to be made” or “nobody has any money” are common right now.  The perception that wealth and money is in scarcity (which is a mathematically absurd concept) results in anxiety, depression and desperation; symptoms common to all addicts of all kinds.  In the world of substance or drug addiction this is known by various names, depending on the particular substance, among them:  jonesing, the jones, coming down or needing a fix. It is incumbent upon all of us to remember that addiction is addiction, regardless of what one is addicted to.  All addictions are destructive, as their only purpose is to serve the function of their own perpetuation and as a result the human qualities known as reason and rationality are nullified.   As such, the fact that the overwhelming majority of humans are addicted to the accumulation or possession of wealth and money results in that their behavior impacts everyone, including those trying to rid themselves of this addiction.  This is why we are witnessing an alarming increase in acts of fraud, deception, robbery and theft, everywhere in the world.  This is no different from the crack addict offering oral sex for a dollar; however we will not make this relationship immediately due to the globe-encompassing spread of the addiction to wealth.  Actions which have always been considered reprehensible will suddenly be justifiable and unacceptable actions will be viewed as the only means to the end of equity.  This is, of course, a null calculation.

None of this is an opinion, nor is it prophecy, nor is it a prediction; it is simply the result of the math.  Regardless of how we feel about it, no one can argue with the math, we can only change it, if we choose to.  We are the authors of tomorrow’s story, whether we like it or not.  It matters not to the blank page that sits awaiting quill and human hand to make a work whole that we have become a planet of addicted, whiny, punk-ass little bitches; we will still have to write the story of our own tomorrow.

I may have written the formula for this math, but I am simply one of us, no more and no less.  I don’t accept this math and with all my heart I choose to try to CHANGE IT, so I write and share the math to that end.  I can not do anything alone; it is not up to me, it is up to us, so I write and share the math in a very direct attempt to not let the math encumber a different choice. Being a member of this human civilization and/or “society” at any level is a forced addictive state; one which requires a daily discipline to overcome.  Is it the least bit odd that we tend to dislike discipline, intensely?  Perhaps we can all take a lesson from those alcoholics who embrace a particular daily discipline.  They conclude that once a person becomes an alcoholic, they will always be an alcoholic, regardless of whether or not they drink.  They are aware that alcohol will always be there to tempt them and it is the exercising of their will which perseveres by allowing the person to CHOOSE NOT TO DRINK instead of drinking, or possibly worse; contemplating other cheap, cop-out and sissy options such as the elimination of all alcohol or legally forbidding its consumption, so as to not have to make any choices.  We’ve been there and done that, it was called the prohibition.  ‘Nuff said.

We can do better.

Choose, don’t excuse.

From the “Math Vault”

I found this in the “vault” over the weekend.   Originally, it started out being one of the “corrections to the morphology of misunderstood linguistic use” that I’ve always been so fond of writing. This tidbit is from 2001 and I never extended the concept into actual math, but it sort of stands on its own and it is ever-so-relevant, so I thought the idea deserved to be shared before going back into the vault.  I recommend it served with 1 part humor and 1 part clarity, over ice, in a rocks glass – make sure not to wax maudlin. Enjoy!

When considering the list of those things that distinguish humans from animals and other forms of life, one of the most important is undoubtedly the “ability to think”.  In the aforementioned example and in others, the word ability has purportedly been listed as an attribute of the verb think.   This is incorrectly written.  Thinking is not an “ability”, it is a function of humanity.  By using the qualifier “ability”, which generally speaking means capacity or having competence, the incorrect attribute is assigned and the expectation is created that thinking is voluntary, given that ability is triggered by a choice.  We can not choose to think or not; in order to be human, we MUST think.  Calling it an “ability” instead of a function simply results in an incorrect definition.  It might also be  the reason why so many people don’t think anymore, because they consider it voluntary.  Voluntary thinking. Right.  Look where that got us.

We can do better.

OBSERVATION #182,475 – As to “movements”.

We have such an affinity for labels and protocols; such is the case with “movements”.  Since we became social and sedentary, some 12,000 years ago, we have launched movement after movement of ideological campaigns; some based on individual obsessions, others on relevant human truths and all of them based on an ideal of some kind.

It is only now that I came upon one of the more recent of these, called: The Zeitgeist Movement. I just finished watching their movie; Moving Forward, not more than an hour ago and I was blown away. Well done!

One thing sticks out in my mind, however; this shouldn’t be called a “movement” for two reasons: First; a movement is always based on an ideal, everything that Zeitgeist stands for is an obvious truth, not an ideal. Second; by classifying the obvious as an ideal and categorizing the organized thought process as a movement, they automatically place themselves within range of scrutiny and debate, thus allowing for others to agree or disagree. This explains the deplorable success ratio of all “movements” to date; it allows for the focus to be taken off the tough choices to be made and on to the debate over the ideal(s). In the end, the debate and eventually the movement, fades away and becomes a novelty item from the past, therefore, the observation:

THE MATH SAYS:

Throughout the whole of human history, the only movement to produce anything productive has been the bowel movement.

There comes a time when we must do and stop arguing.

How to end recessions, bankruptcies and insolvencies.

Post Preface

In appreciation and gratitude to the readers of my Catalogue of Calculations, who have been my extended family for so long and at whose relentless insistence I moved everything to WordPress (after learning about this incredible place from Eitan, who I can never thank enough), I humbly comply with the multitude of requests to share Calculation #182324 “As to ending recessions, bankruptcies and insolvencies” with everyone else; and yes; I’ll also include the anecdote about the inspiration for the math.  To the entire lot of you, who have been there, doing the math, for so long; my thanks and my love pour out, and to those of you who may be wondering what the heck I’m referring to; I bid you a warm welcome to a family who simply put, shares the math. Enjoy!

Back in June of 2010, while driving home, I passed the abandoned construction site of what looked like a planned upscale community.  For just a moment, it took on the air and aspect of a scene from any one of the “post-apocalyptic” science-fiction movies set in the near future.  The development apparently suffered from a sudden and perhaps unexpected construction halt; probably in mid-2008, after everything in the world lost half of its “value”.  The partially built houses had an eerie aspect to them and the piles of construction materials still stacked here and there looked so much like a movie scene that it was freaky, then; all of a sudden I noticed a pickup truck parked in front of one of the lots and a man loading what looked like cinder blocks onto the bed of the pickup from a huge pile of blocks that were right next to where he had parked.  I became way too curious to let an opportunity for that kind of adventure pass, so I pulled off of the freeway and found my way to where the pickup truck was parked.  There was indeed a man loading blocks onto his truck, it was an old man, with that grizzly and weathered look that just screamed of grumpiness and opinions.  I pulled up behind the truck and got out, waving to the old man as I did.

–       “Hey there, old man, could you use a hand?” I asked.

–       “Well, I can’t do a whole hell of a lot with only one of ‘em, but I wouldn’t mind both of them for a bit.” He replied.

–       “Fair enough.” I said.

I started to help the old man load the blocks onto the truck and asked;

–       “So, what’s up with the blocks?  Are you building something?”

He eye-balled me up and down once and snapped back:

–       “What, are you a construction cop or an inspector or something?  Go give someone else a hard time, these blocks have been here for months.  As far as I’m concerned, they’re fair game.”

I loved this guy!

–       “I’m nothing of the sort, Sir; I just thought I’d lend a hand and got curious.  So, what happened here, do you know?” I asked.

–       “What happened?” he said, quite loudly, as if barking almost. “Where have you been? It was the damned RECESSION, that’s what!  It stopped work on this project in two days!  Damned recession!  Cost me my job, too, the recession did, and now it won’t let me find another one!”

I put on my best “what are you talking about” face and said;

–       “Recession?  A recession did all of this and took you job?”

–       ”You’re darn tootin’!” he replied (he actually said “darn tootin’!)

–       “It must have been a pretty big one, to do all of this.” I was dead serious when I said this.  “Heck, to do all this and take your job?  I must have been bigger than Godzilla! Did you actually get a look at it?”

I will never forget the look he gave me; as if he had just seen an alien or something. He became a little agitated, threw the block he was carrying into the pickup’s bed and walked right up to me.  He said;

–       “What the hell are you talking about?  Are you an idiot or something?  What do you mean Godzilla!  For Pete’s sake, are you serious?  This is no laughing matter! What, are you going to tell me that you haven’t noticed that everything is f****-up and that there’s no money, no work and everything has gone half crazy? What the hell is wrong with you anyway?”

I bumped my wrist against my forehead and rolled my eyes, in the universal gesture for “I’m such a dummy.” and said;

–       “Oh, you mean the economic recession?”

–       “Yes, the economic recession!” he retorted, mocking me with the mush-mouth voice.

–       “The economic recession did all of this?” I scratched my head and looked around. “Sir, you do realize that a recession is merely a mathematical formula that someone wrote down after they made it up in their head?  It’s a MATH EQUATION, it can’t do anything at all, it’s not alive, it’s not even a thing; it’s just numbers and symbols.  We are the ones, who give it life by believing that it’s a real, physical phenomenon; like a hurricane or a tornado, but it’s not; it’s just a mathematical equation.”

Before he could say anything, I was overtaken by an episode of what my wife has come to call “Pontification” and spent the next 45 minutes or so subjecting the poor man to a full-out lecture on recessions and other human creations that we have given life to.  When I finished, he wasn’t as upset as I’d expected, in fact, he understood everything I said and thanked me for taking the time to explain what I had just explained.  We shook hands, exchanged phone numbers and went about our business.  That encounter left me inspired, and when I got home, I sat down and wrote calculation #182324, which follows.

By the way, for those of you who don’t know me yet, this really did happen.  The “old man” who sat through almost a full hour of my unforgiving lecture with such grace turned out to be a pretty cool guy by the name of Joseph Teeter.  I told Joe I would be writing this, so Joe, if you’re reading it now:  “How are you, you foul-mouthed old coot! I love ya’!”

CALCULATION N^O. 182324

TITLE:       AS TO ENDING RECESSIONS, BANKRUPTCIES AND INSOLVENCY

DATE RECORDED:     19 JULY 2010

THE MATH SAYS:

Any and all recessions, states of bankruptcy and/or insolvency can be permanently eliminated with no collateral damage or residual effects.

RATIONALE:

All of us are terrified of the possibility that a recession may strike or that anyone can go bankrupt or become insolvent suddenly.  These things terrify us to the point of death, for many people have died from the physical reaction to the emotional trauma that we invite when contemplating or actually dealing with any or all of these things.  While we are all terrified at the thought of a recession, bankruptcy or insolvency, few of us have actually seen any of the three, much less all of them and the vast majority probably of us would not know if or when we might be looking directly at one, since only a select few of us actually know what any of them look like.

It makes no sense to live in fear and it makes even less sense to fear something that you could not identify or recognize in order to fear it (in fact, most people affected by any or all of the three are usually informed of its presence or existence by others.  i.e.:  Did you know that there is a recession here, now?  Or “Hey!  You’re bankrupt!”

Inasmuch as this is true, I feel it is my duty as a human being to introduce you to each one of them or at the very least, give you a photograph of each one, so you know what to look out for.  It’s incredible that no one has done this yet.  Not only do I consider the above my duty, I have the same duty to communicate to you that all 3 are mortal; they can be killed – as in dead – and to further show you how to kill them.  In this way, we can eliminate them forever.  Would you like to meet them?  Very well.

RECESSION

Allow me to introduce you to a recession:

R= [FOR Y/12]  →   (GDP<0)/(Q x 2(C))

Where

R= Recession

Y/12 = 1 month

GDP = Gross Domestic Product where GDP = C + I + G + (X-M) [GDP = consumption + gross investment + government spending + (exports − imports)]

Q = fiscal quarter

(C) = consecutive

Are you all right?  Okay, just checking.  For those of you who did the math and came up with the conclusion that a recession is born during the first month after two consecutive fiscal quarters of negative GDP, you would be correct.  Oh, and by the way; I don’t get it either; it’s rather sloppy math, isn’t it?

Are you ready to meet a bankruptcy and insolvency?

BANKRUPTCY

I’d like for you to meet a bankruptcy, as seen by Z-scoring:

(1.2*T₁) + (1.4*T₂) + (3.3*T₃) + (0.6*T₄) + (.999*T₅) <  1.80

Where

• T₁ = Working Capital / Total Assets
• T₂ = Retained Earnings / Total Assets
• T₃ = Earnings Before Interest and Taxes / Total Assets
• T₄ = Market Value of Equity / Book Value of Total Liabilities
• T₅ = Sales / Total Assets

INSOLVENCY

Now, here is a young insolvency, just entering prime age.

D > p

Where

D = the sum total of an entity’s debts

p = the sum total of an entity’s property, at fair valuation.

There.  Now you’ve met them.  If you are thinking what I hope you’re thinking, again, you would be correct; all three are simply mathematical formulas that sprung out of a human being’s head.

Now that you can recognize them, we can proceed to section where you will learn how to kill any or all of them.

HOW TO KILL A RECESSION, A BANKRUPTCY OR AN INSOLVENCY

You would use this formidable weapon:

An eraser

It’s called AN ERASER.

METHOD:

You ERASE the formula from wherever the idiot who summoned one of them wrote it.

BONUS FEATURE:

This calculation has a bonus feature which was not originally planned when I started writing it about two hours ago.  If for no other reason than the inspiration present at this moment, following is a suggestion and solution to how we can prevent ANOTHER recession, bankruptcy or insolvency from being created and how to eliminate all possibility of a mutated, related or similar thing from ever being thought of again:

We write NEW math.

We can do better

www.ctwnow.org

Choose, don’t excuse.

Math courtesy of having QI

www.whatsyourqi.net