THE BIG SICKS: The Horrible Half Dozen

Status
Not open for further replies.

Kaiduorkhon

Registered Senior Member
THE BIG SIX: The Horrible Half Dozen

-------------------------------------------------------------------

An abbreviated essay:
Introduction:
Presently and addressing the ever present, post and forum bashers and trashers; sundry killjoys who flourish globally, on and off the net, as sincere persons everywhere, are altogether aware, though, few such persons care to allow such elements to squander more valuable time and energy. On the other hand, no problem can approach an effective and lasting resolution, when surrounded by a policy of well or ill intended aloofness, denial, underestimation or misunderstanding.
('If we ignore our environment, maybe it will go away' - bumpersticker)

Editors, Doctors, Police, Military, Fireman make a career of 'dwelling on the negative'. In order that the - whatever - 'negative' may be understood and consequently minimized, if not altogether extirpated. It is understood that some Editors, Doctors, Police, Mlitary, Firepersons, etceteras, are infrequently found to be the sources of the negative, but, these examples are, by far, the exception, and not the rule that is being addressed here.

Conclusion: No real - especially ubiquitous - problem can or will be resolved, when surrounded by a general policy of denial, underestimation and/or misunderstanding. Such a problem will, as a rule, only become worse. Hence the requirement of addressing and studying the causes, effects and available remedies for given problems and their patterns, that they may be effectively resolved.

THE BIG SICKS, THE HORRIBLE HALF DOZEN.

Based on the premise that most of the world's most prominent and repetitive problems are promulgated in one, or a combination, of six major ingredients:

1) Money.
2) Race.
3) Religion.
4) Sex.
5) Brute Force & Intimidation, and,
6) the need or want for - and pursuit of - unqualified love, attention and/or social recogniton.


The two most common methods of fulfilling 6) is achieved through the immediate reward and gratification of a feeling of power, often acted out - and drawing like responses - instantly, in verbal or physical acts of destruction; bringing immediate attention and recognition, including unqualfied love (which is a form of caring, even when it is contempt or hatred).

A mass, random murderer or pair of murderers, or group of same, for example, receives immediate attention and excitement even before apprehended, - in the extreme stimulation of seeing, hearing and reading of his, her or their destructive acts, in the interim of, if and when they are apprehended.

The goals of attention are immediately fulfilled, even when the identity of the offender is undetermined - very exciting. Attention of this qualification also equates with social recognition, which, again, even when the identity of the wrongdoer is unknown, is - however demonically stimulating and exciting - a nefarious source of power fulfillment and satisfaction in itself.

The need for further recognition is often revealed in an unapprehended capital criminal's not uncommon taunting of law enforcement officials and the public at large. Stimulated by the attention, but not entirely satisfied, due to only a qualified recognition, which, until such a pathological subject is identified, remains without complete satisfaction. This is often correctly referred to as what law enforcement and other specialists refer to as, 'the will and need to be brought to justice ('get caught; reveal themselves').

This yearning to be fully recognized and 'accredited' for what all the - whatever - publicity and controversy is about, sometimes leads to the undoing - the identification and apprehension (which is a form of 'caring') - of the 6) profiled, most common generator of serious social and legal problems.

The 6) profiled offender is generally the most common, due to what this record calls, 'the expediency of destruction'. That is, in an effort to fulfill my (often denied) biological imperative for recognition, attention and unqualified love (care), the fulfillment of need or want for recognition, attention and unqualified love (caring, even as a prisoner or villain), can be most promptly acquired, via the acting out of violence, destruction, or the threat of violence or destruction. Foregrounding the immediate reward at the immediate moment. Instant gratification.

A different kind of - constructive rather than destructive - personal character and morality, will pursue attention, recognition and unqualfied love, via a disciplined series of long term behaviors and ways of life, which tend to lead, to one degree or other of satisfying the biological imperatives for recognition, attention and unqualified love (caring).

These observations of key sources and motives of constructive and destructive human aggression are fairly familiar, either through deliberate study of such dynamics, or inadvertant if not vocabularized obsevational and intuitive observations of them. Contingent biological imperatives have many academic categories and names, one of which was identified by Friedrich Nietzche, as, THE WILL TO POWER.

It is not inherently a negative characteristic, simply depending on how a given individual, group, or society chooses - or is led - fo satisfy that will - constructively, or destructively. While it is to be kept in mind, that what may take hours, days, months, years, decades, centuries or millennia to construct, may be destroyed in a matter of moments... (The Expediency of Destruction - it is easier to destroy, harm or maim, than it is to construct, heal or reconstruct...)

On the other hand, in these considerations, what is not well recognized at all, is the most difficult and volatile component of the above considered - Big Sicks, Horrible Half Dozen - ingredients, that additional problem being the common place denial, underestimation or misunderstanding of the above listed facts relating to the most common sources of conflict among human beings.

Consider these commonplace denials:

"I don't want or need - 'am not hung up about' - money.

"I am not hung up or disgruntled by racial issues. I'm color blind."

"I am not troubled by, or bias about religion."

"I am not hung up about sex."

"I am not frightened by brute force or intimidation."

"I am not looking for attention, recognition or unqualfied love (caring)."


These commonplace denials of these universal needs, wants (and inescapably induced 'hang-ups' imposed on the American or European individual who cannot elude the social influences upon him which he vigorously denys) confluence in what there are several terms for, one such term being 'gridlock'. Another such term being 'double-talk', or, more recently, Orwellean 'NewSpeak', or 'DoubleThink'.

In diagrammatic considerations, these self contradictory standards are definable a 'two parallel lines, in mutual conflict, to infinity'. The definition for Orwelllean 'Doublthink'. Refer, 'Crazymaking'. Gridlock, squared:

There is no 'they'.
If there is a 'they', they aren't doing it.
If they're doing it, they're not doing it on purpose.
If they're doing it on purpose, they're only doing it for the money.
If they're doing it for the money, there's nothing you can do about it.
Nobody cares.
There's nothing you can do about it.
And, one more thing: I am not into denial.


A call to surrender and impotence. An abandonment of integrity.

A problem - or series of combinations of problems, which are foreordained only to worsen, until if and when the popular denial of the prevailing structure of problems is acknowledged and compensated for, accordingly.

Although there is much more to the considerations of this abbreviated essay, may it suffice for the moment to say that it's parameters include, for better and worse, most every incumbent problem - or potential solution - in the socio-political, legal and ethical human experience.

Thank you for reading this missive.

Constructive criticism, commentary or contributions welcome.
 
Dear cato:
The fastest growing violent crime in the Unites States is the physical abuse of women and children by adult males. The majority of polled people do not know this. No real problem can be resolved until it is generally recognized and acknowledged. Does it not therefore seem to be a case of public under-reaction, rather than over-reaction on my part or anyone else's within reason. Your very suggestion that it may be a case of my over reaction is evidence of the under reaction that shows itself here.
Thank you for your interest. Please stay in touch. Your contributions are valuable, even though we may not always agree.
 
What if we do realize and acknowledge that humans are violent. Does this really bring us closer to not being violent?
 
Dear Spidergoat:
Is not recognition and acknowledgement of a problem the first step towards its resolution? Especially since the atomic age, we are addressing a dilemma which threatens the entire species if not the planet and every living creature on it; not to mention the piecemeal ruination of domestic families and neighborhoods.

Denying or underestimating the problem maintains and sustains it. Bringing it to the foreground of individual minds, such as those of parent, personalizes what is otherwise often considered an obscure subject. Classes on non violence measurably reduce violence - per capita - within those who do study such challenges, compared to those who don't. (Susan Brownmiller, AGAINST OUR WILL: Men, Women & Rape, THE UNDECLARED WAR AGAINST WOMEN, Susan Faludi). Yes. There are substantial examples that prove an affirmative response to your altogether reasonable question.
 
I'm not so sure it's a problem with a solution. If people are genetically wired to be violent, then only biological, evolutionary or chemical change will be effective. Certain aspects of violence are cultural forms, such as mistreating women, but the root cause still remains. Well meaning people who could control their violent tendencies are by no means universal. All it takes is one person to escalate a situation, and then non-violent people are forced to react violently.

There is some indication that early civilizations in the fertile crescent were not warlike, having made no fortifications or weapons of war for thousands of years. This stability was upset by raiders on horseback from the east. After this, the partnership organization of society was replaced by a patriarchal one that valued strength and power.
 
It ought to be noted that violence has, does, and always will, remain the most viable option with dealing with a myriad of options. Moreover, to become unviolent is only to welcome violence from those who don't. Thus the notion of "peace through superior firepower", I.E. setting up oneself - or one's nation - as an unattackable juggernaut.

In essence, if we want peace, we must prepare for war. On both a personal and international scale.
 
I see that whatever name you go under, Puff, you still spew the same verbiage that all but buries your message out of sight. Ten out of ten for consistency. Zero out of ten for readability.
 
Ophiolite said:
I see that whatever name you go under, Puff, you still spew the same verbiage that all but buries your message out of sight. Ten out of ten for consistency. Zero out of ten for readability.

Dear Ophiolite:
You deserve and are worthy of a thoughtful response. So, I'm thinking about it.
(On the other hand, there's still been no response from you about the ambiguity you predicted about four corners of a square, that wound up being a golden rectangle. Would like to hear from you about that.)

Thank you for being.
KaiduOrkhon, Aka The White Mongol, That Rascal Puff, Magic Horse, etceteras.
 
Ophiolite said:
I see that whatever name you go under, Puff, you still spew the same verbiage that all but buries your message out of sight. Ten out of ten for consistency. Zero out of ten for readability.

glad I read this, I thought it was me.

Whenever I read something that I find hard to digest and the word order seems chaotic, I wonder if it is so or if it is my poor comprehension. However if master Oph says it is so, then it must be! What a relief.
 
I sometimes accidentally re-read some of my old posts and experience the same warm, comforting feeling. :)
 
Ophiolite said:
I sometimes accidentally re-read some of my old posts and experience the same warm, comforting feeling. :)

Dear Oph:
Your authority is well deserved. On the other hand, in my own direct and recent experience, it's not ten out of ten with you in the 300 bowling game department. It has to do with your falsely anticipating a non existent ambiguity on my part regarding what you foresaw as four right angles equalling four points of a square; whereas, I responded that what I was referring to was four right angles equalling four points of a golden rectangle. Could you make a point of intentionally - rather than accidentally re-reading that unanswered new post that transpired between you and I? You didn't respond to me and I met your anticipation with a response for which, so far, you have no reply - no warm, comforting feeling is in evidence on this recent exchange between yourself and I. Is it your policy not to reply when you square yourself over an unexpectedly issued golden rectangle, for example?

Post Script. Is it always accidentally that you re-read some of your old self congratulatory posts, without ever doing so with deliberation?
 
I didn't respond on the golden rectangle business because, once again, I was at a complete loss as to what you were talking about and lacked the mental strenght to plunge again into a sea of ambiguity, swept by a corruscating wind of uncertainty. I'm funny that way.

The only time I deliberately re-read one of my posts is when I am searching for one that I think will nicely address a point raised in another thread, and perhaps another forum.
 
Ophiolite said:
I didn't respond on the golden rectangle business because, once again, I was at a complete loss as to what you were talking about and lacked the mental strenght to plunge again into a sea of ambiguity, swept by a corruscating wind of uncertainty. I'm funny that way.

The only time I deliberately re-read one of my posts is when I am searching for one that I think will nicely address a point raised in another thread, and perhaps another forum.

Perhaps you may summon the strength to google or wikepedia the difference between a square and a rectangle and a golden rectangle. You apparently took me for addressing the first two, when I was (clearly) addressing the golden rectangle (and said so, evoking no response from you), which is known to be one of the most dramatic manifestations of geometry known to anyone. It has to do with Phi, and is very closely related to pi r 2; containing an extrapolation known as the golden spiral - a circular (not 'square') affair, that is accelerating.

It was acceleration that was being conveyed to you, that you didn't know what I was talking about and lacked the mental strength to again plunge into an allegory sea of ambiguity, swept by a corruscating wind of uncertainty; being funny that way.

I can sympathize with your singular motive for deliberately re-reading any of your previously comforting posts at some other location or on another forum. Whereas, just now, I've replicated the one that initiated this latest exchange. Not so much that I question your authority as it is that, occasionally, I am sometimes - like yourself - at a loss to locate it.
 
I have never been at lost to locate my authority, since it is crocheted into a charming cushion cover, accompanied by scenes of the Mall during the 1953 Coronation.
 
Ophiolite said:
I have never been at lost to locate my authority, since it is crocheted into a charming cushion cover, accompanied by scenes of the Mall during the 1953 Coronation.

All the more authoritative merit for you and your crowned threads, Sherlock. (More smoked salmon, Chardonney, or popcorn, anyone?)
 
Actually, I have problem focusing on your text as well. I blame my "trivia-ignore" response. The text seems too impersonal for me to care. But correct if I'm wrong, you're saying we should get violent to stay calm?

Because I agree with that. It's not "if you bottle up your feelings they explode", more like when you don't understand why you are angry, you start getting angry at wrong stuff, and eventually get angry with yourself. Or get angry with yourself, then project it somewhere else. The anger doesn't go away by "blowing steam", it comes back again and again until you've done something about what made you angry to begin with. And unless you try to understand your own emotions and how the world works, you'll always misunderstand just what the hell you're feeling and do the wrong stuff.

And get more angry with yourself, until you can't get happy from the angry-you shouting at you without getting drunk, stoned or whatever that distracts you. The only way is to sit down and think with what are you angry.

Also some people start thinking they're angry with something, and their way of distracting is shouting at other people (or selected people). Maybe even start blaming something like Jews, Communists, Terrorists or Witches. Also, they have a tendency to make tight-cloth definitions (something they Write With Capital Letters) they believe under all circumstances and keep repeating over and over.

Although by not reacting to emotions at all can also lead to bad stuff. But when you understand what you hate and what you love, transforming one into the other becomes a CALM objective. You achive a peace of mind.
 
There may be another case of an oxymoron and a non sequitur in rare agreement here, in pursuit of a solution to the three body problem?
(For parlor use, the vague - especially tandem - ambiguity, continues as a vacantly contentious, salmon smoking, needle pointed life-saver?)
 
Attention please, Ophiolite:
Given your unblushing proclamation in #14 of this list of replies:
"I didn't respond to you on the Golden Triangle business because once again i was at a complete loss as to what you were talking about..."

...combined with (the time allotted for your self-correction, and) your barbed allegations about my 'spewed verbiage' that obscures the import of my messages - the Reader is fairly obliged to recognize that your arrogantly projected ignorance of the Golden Rectangle is tantamount to a concession of your (unexpected) failure to qualify as a scientific authority of any rank.

On the other hand, your impotently aggressive, pretentious posturing and reliance on the ad hominem argument invites an adventurous correction of a retinue of mistaken people reminiscent of yourself; accessible at:
http://www.toequest.com/forum/toe-t...o-called-biggest-blunder-right-after-all.html
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top