Q: Why are there many of us?
A: Because it is necessary, otherwise there would be only 1.
Q: Why are there many of us?
A: Because it is necessary, otherwise there would be only 1.
If all the world’s women suddenly declared that they would only have sex with men that have six testicles in their one scrotum, and everyone believed it; no one would have any more sex and the human race would disappear within a generation.
If the last step of purchasing a new car were to precisely recite the smell of the color blue, as dictated by an Ancient Eskimo Chief to his son, who died without keeping a record of the description, and everyone believed it; no new cars would be sold.
If the world’s financial authorities declared that the sum total value of all money, gold, silver and other wealth possessed by all of the people on the planet totaled $34 Trillion and that the total amount of debt owed by all of the people on the planet was valued at $84 trillion, and everyone believed it, then money and wealth would be meaningless and worthless, no one would ever actually be able to own anything and everything in life would be measured by what you owe instead of what you are.
Oh shit, wait a minute. That last one’s an actual fact.
Just for the sake of argument, let’s just say that the $84 trillion debt figure is real (LOL). Let’s also say that I wanted to settle that debt, the whole thing, for everyone, and that I had the money with which to do it. This being the case; who would I make the check out to?
It’s just a bombastic question, but a curious one to contemplate.
Here’s a simple question with an impossible answer: The IMF, The Federal Reserve and every official entity in the world agree that the total amount of debt that exists in the world is approximately $84 Trillion. By the same token, they also establish that the total amount of wealth in the world is approximately $34 Trillion. Regardless of the exact precision on the numbers; how is it possible that we can owe more than what there actually is?
Or is someone just messing with our heads?
Intelligence is a choice, not a super-power.
The only thing that any credential can give true evidence of is that a financial transaction occurred.
The manipulation and alteration of words and language over long periods of time is a subject that I have written about on several occasions and will do so with more frequency as it becomes more and more of a factor affecting the road ahead of us. This deceitful control mechanism has been used almost continuously since we invented language; it has been an extremely convenient tool in the hands of the few and their ability to maintain control of the reins of humanity up until now. In the roughly 12,000 years since the Neolithic revolution sparked life and gave birth to the dynamic human mechanism called civilization, those few who, for whatever reason, found themselves in the position to observe its birth and development, understood what was most important to understand at that time: first, that a human civilization is not a human quality but a dynamic product of the actions of humanity and that it has only one purpose and objective: to grow, in spite of the fact that nothing can grow perpetually, period; at least nothing that we know of and second; that what civilization feeds on in order to grow, is the dynamic human energy that is the result of everything that everyone does. It does not discriminate as to the nature or origin of the human dynamic energy on which it feeds. It matters not to the dynamic of civilization if the energy that it consumes in ever increasing quantities is the result of war or if it the result of a highly productive collaboration; as long as it is energy. In the understanding of these two key aspects of civilization there was a great discovery to be made. We noticed that there were no rules as to how human activity and its resulting energy were to be structured or supervised. We could literally do anything that we could think of which would result in human activity. This little detail has always been our Achilles’ heel; we have not had any success at administering our own autonomy without succumbing to the temptation of imposing our will over others (the imposition of will is what creates the illusion of power). At the same time, it is always been that any organization or structure given to the activities of humans within a civilization have occurred by the imposition of the will or a “few” who attempt to coordinate their activities with great attention to detail to keep the rest of us in line with their agenda. These impositions and the will they represent became the rules that we structured to guide all of our actions; in order to simply keep up busy. This keeps civilization fed and full and allows for the few to do whatever they want and to use the rest of us to as tools to this end, so long as humans were active. Some of these rules were imposed in a sudden and blunt manner which required some dramatic methods to achieve (since humans don’t deal with change effectively). The incorporation of religion into the fabric of human civilization was such an imposition of will; once the concept of religion evolved to the point where it became an effective tool for control, it was imposed with the subtlety of a hurricane during an earthquake. Other rules/impositions were structured with more careful planning and contain an unusual component for a human mechanism; time. These rules are very proactive and well thought out; in particular, the manipulation of language. The results of these manipulations can not be felt for many years sometimes, which in some ways is almost contradictory to the modern pace of everything which is based on doing everything immediately. I can not pinpoint when or how or who came up with the strategy of manipulating language over time to allow for control of future generations, it may not be possible given the lack of information available to trace related events backwards in time, but it doesn’t matter; we can clearly see the manipulations if we simply look for them, no one made any attempts to disguise these subtle changes in the meaning of words and nuances in inflection and tone which changed the entire understanding of things over time, nobody needed to, we weren’t looking for them. One does not look for what one does not know is there. It took what we’re going through now to create the opportunity to ask the question and once we did, it all became immediately transparent. I hope we can all learn the lessons that can be learned by observing, with such clarity, what we have been capable of doing to ourselves, and in fact, what we have done.
One of the most impacting of these manipulations has been the inclusion and evolution of the words value and worth and the concepts that they represent.
The word and the concept of worth existed well before the word and the concept of value even though their extremely close and intimate linguistic relationship today would make it hard to believe. In fact, the two words, at the point where they became words after going through all of morphological linguistic processes that words go through in order to become words, were born from two conceptually different linguistic origins. Worth the word was born to the family of human judgment lexicons. It stems from the concept morpheme worthy and essentially means worthy of; good or important enough to merit being considered useful or important or an excellence commanding esteem, be it to the world, to a group of people in particular or even just to one person. This is the root meaning of the word “worth” at its point of origin. Some examples of its use are:
“Anagrad is a person who is fair in judgment and compassionate in action; he is worth knowing.”
“Your advice and counsel seem reasonable and useful, it is advice worth taking.”
“The place that lies beyond the trees that lie beyond field that lies beyond the place where we bury our dead that lies beyond the river that lies beyond our planted fields and orchards that lie beyond our homes is far away and a long walk, but its beauty is worth the trip.”
These are all examples of the language lexicon which expresses judgment calls. In all cases, whatever it is that has been determined of worth is of importance to one or more people, which is a fundamental variable in the calculations of value. It would be appropriate today to say that those things in the examples that were considered of worth was because they had value, since excellence of character, usefulness or importance; in fact the word “values” when used to define human behavior are those considered useful or important by a group of people, regardless of what it is that has worth or is valuable. It is important to note that everything related to both of these words existed purely in the realm of human judgment. Over time, the definition of worth began to include a more proprietary nature, indicative of that which left something or produced something important to one or more people, as in: “That ox was worth the 3 slaves and my youngest virgin daughter, it has plowed thrice the area that I could have plowed alone.” This shift in the emphasis of worth began a shift towards a relationship with wealth and money and over time, the dominating definitions of the words were related to their relationship with money. Even though the original definitions describing judgment-based criteria remained in the dictionary, the expansion of those definitions, (which were all related to money) dominated the concept. See the definition of worth here. Worth suddenly was defined as having a value of, or equal in value to, as in money: This vase is worth 12 dollars. In this way, the word worth “changed” from being a noun to a preposition, if fact, in today’s dictionary it is listed as both, with preposition in the key position. Even when referring to its original function as a noun, we can see that the descriptions of things commanding esteem or considered useful or important now included the simple definition: value, as in money. Wow, pretty straightforward, but completely different from its roots, in other words; contradictory.
The word value however, was born a noun. See the definition of value here. Here we can see that right off the bat, the #1 definition of value is “the relative worth, merit or importance; the value of a queen in chess. Here I would argue that this definition describes a preposition, it is still a judgment call, but it had to be put in there I guess to preserve the “integrity” of continuity, if nothing else. This was quickly cleared up in all the rest of the definitions, where value is defined as monetary or material worth, as in commercial trade and the worth of something in terms of the amount of other things for which it can be exchanged or in terms of some medium of exchange. Perhaps this last definition was a last ditch and desperate attempt to scream out “Hey! It’s not only money that has value; it can be other stuff too.” perhaps in the hopes of disguising the actual and total link between value and money. Maybe it was assumed that we don’t understand that the only medium of exchange in the world is money, or at least the only one worth exchanging. Do you see how they become intertwined in a knot of confusion, misdirection and deceit? Perhaps this slipped by a lot of people, after all it was designed to and we are not taught to question the dictionary, but after covering the other mandatory uses of the word “value” (like in mathematics, for example), we come to the 16th definition of the word, in which it becomes a verb, used with object and is defined as “to calculate or reckon the monetary value of; give a specified material or financial value to…” It doesn’t get much more direct that than that. Value is how we “reckon” the monetary value of….. Those things that have worth, obviously. We don’t walk into a store and say: “Excuse me, what’s the value of that painting?” We say “Excuse me, what is that painting worth?” In practice, if not in fact, they have becomes synonyms. The worth of a thing is defined by its monetary value. They essentially mean the same thing, so why keep both words? It’s simple, because worth still maintains an element of human judgment as part of its function, and that is what makes it possible for something to be worth more than what its value may be. Value is a specific measurement in terms of money; so is worth, but the latter kept a partial definition as a function of judgment, which may alter the value of a thing if the individual or group considers it important enough. This is what has allowed for a smooth-talking salesman to show someone a bottle of flax seed oil (for example), a consumable product with a value of roughly $1.00 per pint, then pick and choose the right words that will raise the importance of that oil to the potential buyer and suddenly, the same pint of oil is worth $20.00 to that person at that moment, as a result of a judgment call based on the explanation (story) they were hearing. This is why we kept the word worth in modern day language, it justifies the excuse that the value of a thing may be a fixed number in the Universe, but the monetary expression of that value is whatever a person considers it to be worth. This results in a direct and flagrant contradiction of definitions in the dictionary, and it’s also the excuse for the con, the play on words that allows for astuteness to be considered more important a quality than intelligence and capriciousness to win out over logic: because in the end, the worth of anything is a result of individual judgment. How extremely convenient a variable to use in altering the calculation of value used in economics and commerce; and how devastating.
Just ask yourself this and consider the significance to today’s world:
It used to be that the worth of a thing was determined by what it produced and held, since it has always been a law of human dynamics that the “worth” of a nation or even a person, was measured by what they produced and held (as in owned). That worth was then translated into its equivalent value in money and that resulted in its “net worth”; it was also what allowed for human beings became ‘for sale’ without technically being slaves. In short, the value of what someone or something was worth was measured by its ability to produce things of value and hold things of value, thus increasing their financial worth, which has become the only measure of value important to us.
Today, in 2011, a person, a company or even a country is only worth as much as its ability to pay the value of what it OWES, given that the aberration of the value of things caused by the use of individual judgment to allow for things to be worth more than their value resulted in an enormous fracture in the calculations of value. People began to exchange more money for something they desired than the value of that thing, as established by our own reckoning, this difference could not be financially reconciled because it was born of judgment and not accounting and therefore, over time, we were committing to exchange more than what we had (our net worth ) for virtually everything, allowing for the birth of CREDIT AND DEBT. Today, even those few people and entities that still produce things of value today do not have their worth enhanced by the value of the things they produce. If whatever a person or company or country produces isn’t immediately converted into the money representing its value – in the form of assets, which can be attached, taken or legally foreclosed upon, then they are considered “worthless”. Production of goods and services has become pointless, only the converted monetary value of a thing in the form of an asset is worth anything. A person can produce a million dollars worth of goods and services every day, but unless they convert that production into money and the money into assets, (which can be taken, or litigated or foreclosed upon) then that person is considered worthless by virtue of “insolvency”.
In conclusion, what began as considering anything that was seen as useful to have worth; today the only thing that is useful is money, which also happens to be the only thing we consider to have value. The only thing worth having is money, since that determines the value of what you can pay towards your DEBT, and everyone knows that a person isn’t worth anything until they owe money and thus establish credit, which creates value by allowing us to BUY money at an enormous markup, which in turns diminishes our worth and in the end, no matter what anyone does, we all end up owing everything that we may be worth to someone else.
There you have it: Value and worth; an incredibly detailed mind-fuck that, over time, made people worthless while maintaining money valuable. What an amazingly brilliant construct. We are capable of so much. If only we could figure out how to use that capacity collaboratively to make us ALL happy, instead of allowing for a few to feel the rush of imagined power at the expense of the rest of the suffering of the rest of humanity.
We can do better.
The only person who can judge another for what may be considered a crime is the victim or the victim’s successor in the case of murder and it is the business of only those two: the offended and the offender, to determine the truth of the crime as well as its resolution, on neutral ground and in plain view of anyone wishing bear witness. The testimony and assistance of others may be accepted, but in the end only the person who has been injured by another has the right to judge that person. When the incentives of money and/or revenge are eliminated from the equation, they fail to motivate human judgment and all that is left is the victim and what their heart tells them. Everyone is born knowing the difference between right and wrong, anything else becomes an excuse to impose the will of a few.
Sometimes, it is important that we share other sides of ourselves with those who are important to us. I have a new family at WordPress and i thought it would be both fun and interesting to share something that ISN”T a 10 page thesis about something. Here, i want to share a very personal family video with all of you. Let me give you the background on it. If you’ve read any of my work, you then know that I’m constantly pounding the math into everything. Sometimes, the math can be fun and beautiful. For years, I’ve been saying that we need NEW things: New ideas, new concepts and even new traditions. One of the ones that I’ve been picking on is the “happy birthday song’. It’s OLD, it’s boring and i really think it’s time for a new one. So I had an idea and the video you can view via the links at the end of this post is the result. This took me 20 minutes to film and edit, so it’s pretty raw, but still it does what I hoped it would. The young lady you see in the video is my 4 year old daughter Marioxi Maya. She is such a ham. I asked her if she would help me with something and the minute she saw the camera, she was on stage. What you will see is the song that I’m recommending everyone to use for birthdays, if they want. The song is AWESOME. It’s catchy, it’s birthday and it’s perfect. The problem is that the lyrics are a bit hard to learn. What you will see is the solution that Maya and I came up with for that.
Sit back, relax and enjoy the new happy birthday song, with Maya! I hope you enjoy it!
I read. I see. I feel everyone else, because we can do that if we try. I listen and most of all I participate because it’s our world and you are all “my people”. Not mine in the possessive sense, but mine in the way that one refers to the people from their home town; like if one said; “I’m from Key West, FL; my people are kind-hearted and practical by nature.” In this sense, I would say “I’m Human, my people are the most wonderful thing to behold; we are a giant family of variety, spread out all over the face of our Mother Earth.” We are all we have and we must remember how beautiful we are and how fragile we can be. A few of us have also twisted the same qualities that make us so wonderful to behold into tools for inequity and manipulation. This was possible for many years because our family was dispersed all over Mother Earth and for a long, long time, it was easy to make it difficult for all of us to talk. So we didn’t. We listened to what the few told us about whom and what we were and we obeyed and followed; what else was there to do? We were baptized in the religion of conflict and educated in the school of differences; we were taught that we were different. Those people from over there are not like us. They don’t eat what we eat, or talk like we talk or dress like we dress or think like we think….wait a minute – the only reason I eat what I eat and talk the way I talk and dress the way I dress and think the way I think because that’s all my parents knew when I was born and where I grew up. Those people from over there or from anywhere are no different than anyone else, we are exactly the same and if we eat differently or talk different or think differently it is only because that is what we were taught and not because we are different. What we were taught was convenient for the few, without regard for the damage that it would cause. We can see this now. We can look back and see the road already travelled and observe the mistakes and wrong turns made along the way and we can make sure not to repeat them. We must be responsible if we are going to attempt a happier world and a happier life for all of us. This responsibility includes how and what we communicate. Language is a critical human dynamic, without it many things would not be possible, including what I’m writing at this moment. The critical importance of language to humans is the very reason why it has been manipulated and re-worked so many times over so many years. It should not be a surprise that a sentence or even a single word has power and if that power were manipulated, the results could be disastrous. I’m here to tell you that our languages have been manipulated and altered to the point of having two parallel and contradictory paradigms; this horrifying fact is common knowledge and we don’t even realize it, that’s how powerful words are. We know the two as the literal and the figurative. The what and the what? How can a word or a sentence have a literal meaning and at the same time a figurative meaning? How can a word or a sentence officially mean one thing but in practice mean something else? That’s what literal and figurative signify. Why did we have to invent two new words when there was already one word that has the same significance: hypocrisy. This linguistic hypocrisy has been used, once and again, to warp the truth of a thing, to change the nature of a thing or even to alter actual events. People have been imprisoned or even put to death for something that was said and that is unacceptable, no word or words in existence can be worth someone’s life, yet we all know things like this have happened. We must, all of us, make sure not to allow things like that to ever happen again. Language and words are a very important part in the changes occurring today. We are all part of the change and we are coming together as one big family. We still speak different languages however, so must help each other whenever possible to understand what is said or written in whatever language it is spoken or read. Right now is a good time to start. There is a word that more and more people are using more frequently every day and in every venue. As we realize that it is all of us who are the world and not the few who claim to be, we feel empowered and lose the fear of speaking out, as it should be. This does not mean we can stop paying attention. This word, if used in any number of particular ways can be used against anyone in the worst of ways. In some places in the world, even today, the mere mention of this word is punishable by death. That’s right; a word can kill you. It should not come as a surprise that what allows this word to have the power of life and death is that it has been manipulated and altered. I offer this tiny observation as knowledge to all of my people of the world, so that we can help each other to move forward and not allow ourselves to go backwards, especially by the use of trickery in our languages.
The word in question is anarchy and all of its various forms which include anarchist and anarchism. This word has been tampered with and altered in linguistic terms and regardless of the language used to speak it, the result is the same. The proof of this is in the very instrument used to manipulate the word: The Dictionary. First let’s do a quick mental exercise. Think of the word anarchy and then focus on what the word brings to your mind. For the most part, if anyone hears the word; anarchy, what comes to the mind of most people is an image, the image of lots and lots of people, running around and screaming, in total disarray and chaos, wreaking havoc and wanton destruction everywhere they go. The image is of relentless looting, pillaging and raping without any control and without anyone in charge to stop it. That’s what we think of when we hear the word and that’s what the few or the convenient will understand whenever they hear it or read it and it WILL be used against many people who are not thinking about destroying or looting anything. Anarchy has the distinction of being a manipulated/altered word and it makes common sense to make sure that all of us know this so that no manipulations of meaning can occur. Let’s take a look at the Dictionary and see what the few have done to the language that we use; in this case it’s English, but do the same thing in any language and you will see the same result. Here’s what the dictionary tells us about the word:
1. a state of society without government or law.
2. political and social disorder due to the absence of governmental control: The death of the king was followed by a year of anarchy.
3. a theory that regards the absence of all direct or coercive government as a political ideal and that proposes the cooperative and voluntary association of individuals and groups as the principal mode of organized society.
Here we can see that the word has three distinct meanings, the interesting thing is how each one either contradicts the other(s) or how some of them simply lie to create a false definition. We can see that the word is listed as a NOUN. It has 3 syllables. If we look at the word’s linguistic morphology it is composed of two morphemes with a common Greek root. –an is a prefix meaning without and archy, from the Greek +arkh- (leader) as derived from the base word arkhein (to rule). Simply put, anarchy means without a ruler (leader).
This simple definition is expanded upon in the first definition of the word in the dictionary: [1. a state of society without government or law.] Here we can see the substitution of the words government and law in the place of leader or ruler. Technically, however, society has nothing to do with it, nor is it a state of society, it is simply the absence of a ruler or leader. If we let this slide, this first definition would be accurate enough since there are hardly any rulers in today’s world, they have all been replaced by governments and law, with are both much more convenient since neither can die nor be killed or anything else that a human can suffer from but not an ideal (supposedly). Simple enough.
Now let’s look at the second definition and here we can see the alteration in the definition of a single word. It explains that anarchy is [political and social disorder due to the absence of governmental control]. What does this mean? Are we to understand that the absence of a government (in this case any one of the –isms: capitalism, communism, socialism, fascism or totalitarianism) automatically results in social disorder? Wait a minute! Isn’t that the mental image that comes to everyone’s mind? If anarchy is political and social disorder, then it is not a noun, I’m not sure what it would be, maybe somewhere in the family of adverbs, since disorder in this case is written in the literal sense (another altered word) and describes an action. Aren’t those verbs? How can the same word mean the absence of government and at the SAME TIME be used to define what is supposed to happen in the absence of government? That’s just a little too convenient. It’s kind of like what my dad told my mom the night they made me; he said: “Honest, honey. Just the tip. I promise! Just the tip.” – right. Anarchy DOES NOT MEAN the chaotic and lawless disorder that occurs in the absence of government, that’s looting and pillaging. Rape doesn’t technically fall into that category, but for some reason if the absence of authority is even implied, men begin to rape women, so to a great degree the manipulation of this word shares in the responsibility of what results from the manipulation; the rest of the responsibility falls on the shoulders of my fellow males, who very conveniently might just believe this and actually think that it is okay to rape, as long as there is no government. What? Like this hasn’t happened in our history? This second definition is … bullshit. Simple and pure bullshit, yet we bought it, hook line and sinker. As a result, if anyone attempts to use the word anarchy, even in an academic sense, they are taken for “promoters or anarchism” and can be arrested. All because of this second definition which is a simple fabricated lie.
Now, the third definition is really a whopper. It says that anarchy is [a theory that regards the absence of all direct or coercive government as a political ideal and that proposes the cooperative and voluntary association of individuals and groups as the principal mode of organized society]. Here we go again. A theory? That’s not a noun, but wait a minute…read the whole thing, slowly, then come back here. Let me ask a question: Isn’t the principal mode of an organized society supposed to be based on the ideal that individuals and groups cooperate so as to make sure that direct or coercive governments are always absent? Isn’t this what we call Democracy? When did this third definition get put in there? I don’t remember seeing it 15 years ago. Now, suddenly, someone would have us believe that anarchy = democracy? That is what #3 is saying.
Now we are completely confused. It is officially impossible to know exactly what anarchy means, but someone will surely come up with a way to use it against someone else, when it becomes convenient.
Let’s further this a bit by looking at the definition of the word as seen in the:
World English Dictionary
1. general lawlessness and disorder, esp when thought to result from an absence or failure of government
2. the absence or lack of government
3. the absence of any guiding or uniting principle; disorder; chaos
4. the theory or practice of political anarchism
This dictionary wins the first place prize for hypocrisy and bullshit. Look at the very first definition. This would have us believe the there doesn’t actually have the absence of government for there to be anarchy, it just hast to be thought absent. In other words, all one has to do is to think that there’s no government and then they can begin the looting and the pillaging? How grandiose of the authors of that reference book.
I don’t think I need to detail how definitions numbers 2, 3 and 4 contradict each other. It is so disgusting that it leaves a foul taste in one’s mouth. The “powers that be” have completely destroyed any coherence to the meaning of the word “anarchy”, so it can never mean whatever anyone actually is trying to say; it will always mean what’s convenient to the few.
It would make sense to simply not use the word anymore. Even in the dictionary, it has been defined into contradictory obscurity, and can only result in trouble. For the sake of establishing a single definition, a suggestion might be that the concept held in the mind of a person who might otherwise use the word anarchy to communicate the same is as follows:
The practical possibilities that result when all humans participate in the coordination and function of living together as a global community, where the authority and the regulation of day-to-day human life is shared by all humans in an environment of productivity and happiness for every single human being.
I don’t think there’s a word for that is there? Why can’t we give it one? Maybe we can call it Humanism. I don’t think saying that word will get anyone killed. What do you think?
I love you all; each and every one of you.